|
|
#23
06-10-2006, 05:12 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 25-50 fake weak lead
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] you have a wide re-raising range heads up in the BB vs an UTG raiser in a 6 handed game? [/ QUOTE ] yes [/ QUOTE ] Im pretty sure i reraise even more than you do- but i dont mind just calling QQ here a fair amount of the time (altho my default is to r/r). 
|
|
#24
06-10-2006, 07:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 25-50 fake weak lead
[ QUOTE ]
your bad at poker. [/ QUOTE ] uh, i hope you're kind of joking somehow. - note that it's you'RE. im sure he doesn't need the help, but i would take all of cwl's action against you, forever.
|
|
#25
06-10-2006, 11:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 25-50 fake weak lead
here was my thinking for the range of hands i thought villian could have:
- a Q, i dont like my play and think a bigger bet would definitely be better. even though its certainly reasonable for villian to have a Q i discounted this probability cause there is only that one Q for him to have. i also thought there was at least a small chance i might get value raised by AQ. - a J, this may be a bit unlikely given the play up to the river but i felt like a real bet would probably just force a call. - some type of mid pair, this is the hand range that i thought my play would work out best against. i didnt want to make a more legit value bet cause i thought he would probably fold. i was hoping my bet would communicate specifically that i had some type of marginal hand that probably beat a mid pair but didnt want to take any heat. the goal was to turn some check behind hands into bluff raise hands with a small auxillary benefit of gaining a tiny value bet from hands that would otherwise check or fold. the possibility of this type of hand was a big part of why i didnt check/raise even though i think that's a pretty decent option otherwise. - flush, i thought my play would basically work out similarly to a check/raise. one aspect i didnt consider at the time was whether my re-raise would actually let him fold more hands than a check/raise would. a couple questions ive got after reading this thread are, what would have been the best bet size to induce a raise? it seems a decent number of folks feel like my bet is just too fishy. roughly what do you think the breakpoint is in terms of what im getting raised by if i make a more legit bet? are all flushes raising basically all bets i make?
|
|
#26
06-10-2006, 11:42 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 25-50 fake weak lead
As usual, I agree completely with cero. That river bet is absurdly small and would be handled with a lot of suspicion by good players who have respect for your game. I would bet at least 400 - closer to 500 - to achieve the scared "I want a showdown" response that you are going for.
|
|
#27
06-10-2006, 11:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 25-50 fake weak lead
one other observation, it seems like enough people think my bet is too obviously fishy to induce much. this implies that you think obnoxiously small weak leads are an extremely effective way to control river betting? in most other threads where a weak lead was brought up, and it was a real weak lead, i feel like most people took the opposite position. i would guess the reality is probably somewhere in between.
|
|
#28
06-10-2006, 02:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 25-50 fake weak lead
[ QUOTE ]
one other observation, it seems like enough people think my bet is too obviously fishy to induce much. this implies that you think obnoxiously small weak leads are an extremely effective way to control river betting? [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, I do, if it's coming from a player whose game is respected. A lead this small is so rare, and it seems to never come from a strong player, and it seems to almost always be weak, so if I saw it from a good player, I'd be VERY cautious, knowing he knows all this as well. Once I saw that he controlled the pot like that, of course, it's back to guessing. But, if somebody respects you, and they've never seen you make this play, I'd say it would be a good way to get a cheap showdown.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
