|
|
#11
10-25-2007, 11:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 50NL - floating a shortie ok here?
[ QUOTE ]
I see no floating in this hand... Hand is played pretty bad. [/ QUOTE ] 
|
|
#12
10-26-2007, 12:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 50NL - floating a shortie ok here?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I don't think there is any reason to get it in here. problem is, it actually is correct for you to call at this point; that is exactly why your raise is so bad! now you have to call getting huge odds with probably 25-30% equity. [/ QUOTE ] that line of reasoning would make it correct to stack off with seven-deuce just because the "huge odds" he's getting by bloating the pot? one line says there's no reason to get it in there, and then you say he has to call??? dude, just because i'm holding kings when a 12/1/1 three bets me large and i KNOW he has aces, doesn't mean i dump a huge stack to him. this hand is bad. don't compound the mistake. just saying "butchered badly" is 'nuff. EN [/ QUOTE ] are you serious? the fact that he has to call here is based on the 25-30% estimated equity I gave him against villains range. Do you really not see the difference between saying you should not have bet at all and saying now that you [censored] up and bet you have to call? as for your example, if you have already committed enough of your stack that you are getting 5:1 on a call with your KK and villain flips over AA in front of your face you are stupid to lay it down
|
|
#15
10-26-2007, 02:56 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 50NL - floating a shortie ok here?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I don't think there is any reason to get it in here. problem is, it actually is correct for you to call at this point; that is exactly why your raise is so bad! now you have to call getting huge odds with probably 25-30% equity. [/ QUOTE ] that line of reasoning would make it correct to stack off with seven-deuce just because the "huge odds" he's getting by bloating the pot? one line says there's no reason to get it in there, and then you say he has to call??? dude, just because i'm holding kings when a 12/1/1 three bets me large and i KNOW he has aces, doesn't mean i dump a huge stack to him. this hand is bad. don't compound the mistake. just saying "butchered badly" is 'nuff. EN [/ QUOTE ] are you serious? the fact that he has to call here is based on the 25-30% estimated equity I gave him against villains range. Do you really not see the difference between saying you should not have bet at all and saying now that you [censored] up and bet you have to call? as for your example, if you have already committed enough of your stack that you are getting 5:1 on a call with your KK and villain flips over AA in front of your face you are stupid to lay it down [/ QUOTE ] good 'nuff. i've laid down KK before, not often mind you, but have done it. and rightfully so when you take into account 'results oriented' analysis and see what he proudly shows. the guy who sits there regularly for hours and plays only two hands with his postflop shove then rolls his aces gets my table respect when he sits for another hour before he plays yet another hand. give me all the oddspeak you want. sometimes you need to play the player is all. SS2 speaks of the same situation and i agree with DB's reasoning. EN
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
