#11
|
|||
|
|||
Re: deep with set, too weak?
[ QUOTE ]
Is there any merit to betting 200 on the turn with these stacks? [/ QUOTE ] No. It lets Villain play way too easily, and will cost us EV whether ahead or behind. OP, I think you played this hand very well. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Re: deep with set, too weak?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Is there any merit to betting 200 on the turn with these stacks? [/ QUOTE ] No. It lets Villain play way too easily, and will cost us EV whether ahead or behind. OP, I think you played this hand very well. [/ QUOTE ] eh, just speculating, not suggesting it |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Re: deep with set, too weak?
no worries. that move would be much better suited to a board with more semibluffing possibilities, and if hero had made such moves semi-frequently in the past.
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Re: deep with set, too weak?
I play this the same.
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Re: deep with set, too weak?
I doubt raising on the later streets gets called by a worse hand. 56 anyone?
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
results
as everyone and their grandma suspected, he had an OESD that filled up on the turn. i suspected he did but folding is obviously out of the question so i payed him off. it itched in my push-finger though :S
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Re: deep with set, too weak?
I like it. I dont think he's calling a raise without a straight or AA. I feel like he doesnt make this move with an A as his hand would have showdown value and he wouldnt try to pump the pot up. So its either a monster or air/busted draw here (and I think air/busted draw most of the time).
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|