![]() |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
The turn cap shows a pretty fundimental misunderstanding of pot equity. Why the forum advocates it is beyond me. [/ QUOTE ] Am I missing something? Only 1 hand beats him at that point.... 89. And 89 isn't 3-betting that flop, is it? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The turn cap shows a pretty fundimental misunderstanding of pot equity. Why the forum advocates it is beyond me. [/ QUOTE ] Am I missing something? Only 1 hand beats him at that point.... 89. And 89 isn't 3-betting that flop, is it? [/ QUOTE ] Dont forget 44, 66, and 77, all of which may have 3-bet flop. 55 doesn't 3-bet flop, but now also has you beat. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
if the villain has a set on the flop, he has 10 outs to beat us on the river... 10/44 = 22.7% chance of winning.
If the villain has 2 pair, then the guy has 4 outs, which obviously didn't complete on the river. If the villain has 85 we tie, if he has 53, we win. I think not capping the turn would be a bad thing. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The turn cap shows a pretty fundimental misunderstanding of pot equity. Why the forum advocates it is beyond me. [/ QUOTE ] Am I missing something? Only 1 hand beats him at that point.... 89. And 89 isn't 3-betting that flop, is it? [/ QUOTE ] MP1 didn't 3-bet the flop. We could be getting freerolled as well. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] The turn cap shows a pretty fundimental misunderstanding of pot equity. Why the forum advocates it is beyond me. [/ QUOTE ] Am I missing something? Only 1 hand beats him at that point.... 89. And 89 isn't 3-betting that flop, is it? [/ QUOTE ] MP1 didn't 3-bet the flop. We could be getting freerolled as well. [/ QUOTE ] oh [censored] I misread the board... [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] my bad. |
![]() |
|
|