|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
NL $600. Big bluff with AQ vs. a TAG regular (hand I viewed)
9 players, Villain has $740, Hero covers
Hero has no real read of villain, except that he is likely to be a TAG regular Hero has A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] in MP UTG limps $6, 2 folds, Hero raises to $27, 3 folds, SB Villain calls, UTG calls Flop 2[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (3 players, $84) SB bets $30, UTG folds, Hero raises to $100, SB re-raises to $170, Hero 4bets to $360 Thoughts? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL $600. Big bluff with AQ vs. a TAG regular (hand I viewed)
Why do you think he's a TAG regular, especially with that betting pattern? Looks totally spewtastic to me.
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL $600. Big bluff with AQ vs. a TAG regular (hand I viewed)
Okay, UTG limps...seems like pocket pair to me. Is he really going to lay that down with $190 into a $700+ pot? I think he'd be pretty crazy, so I think it is a bad bluff personally. Real question is not whether to fold, but whether to call or shove.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL $600. Big bluff with AQ vs. a TAG regular (hand I viewed)
hands like this demonstrate the meaning of "tag fish".
just bc you play a somewhat tight game doesnt mean you dont spew horribly. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL $600. Big bluff with AQ vs. a TAG regular (hand I viewed)
A 4-bet is only good if you have some fold equity. (Unless there's some ultra-deep multi-levelled thinking going on, doesn't seem to be the case)
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL $600. Big bluff with AQ vs. a TAG regular (hand I viewed)
This was a hand I viewed on a video made by a $25/$50 FR player.
His logic for the 4bet was based on 2 assumptions, as far as I can gather: 1. He put the SB on a low/mid pair to call from SB. He expected a re-raise from the blinds with AA-QQ. In fact, his commentary was along the lines of " I know he has 44-JJ here". He had been playing aggressively and felt that this guy was making a play on him with the 3-bet. 2. This guy was a $3/$6 regular who wouldn't have got to that level if he couldn't lay down JJ here to an 'obvious' AA/KK. All I can say is, he appeared very confident of a fold and that his play was clearly the correct option. I don't know if it influenced him, but Villain took a very long time to make the 3bet. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL $600. Big bluff with AQ vs. a TAG regular (hand I viewed)
very ugly. When would you ever have AA/KK/88 here?
just call and raise him on the turn if you want to get tricky. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL $600. Big bluff with AQ vs. a TAG regular (hand I viewed)
and i watched the video.
I mean, as played the 4bet is decent i guess, its just that I hate the raise to begin with. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL $600. Big bluff with AQ vs. a TAG regular (hand I viewed)
[ QUOTE ]
I mean, as played the 4bet is decent i guess, its just that I hate the raise to begin with. [/ QUOTE ] He has Ace high, he 'knows' his opponent has a small/mid pair - why wouldn't he raise if he thinks he can get a fold? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL $600. Big bluff with AQ vs. a TAG regular (hand I viewed)
because his raise is implausible.
Think about it. The average player gets donkbet on this board with a big pair or flopped trips or a boat. Is he going to blow villain out of the pot with a raise? No, not usually. He's going to smooth call. If you were going to raise with a big hand on this flop, it would be because you are attempting to second level the villain and get paid. So essentially, what i'm getting at, is that you need to not only be sure that this villain is thinking on the fourth level, but you also need to be sure that he thinks you think that deeply. A much more plausible bluff vs a mediocre to decent villain would be to smoothcall the flop and raise most turns. |
|
|