Did I Get Pwned by Sklansky? - Strange 2-4 Hand

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
well, one thing i haven't seen mentioned is the following:

how do you think kevin and others will react to david when he does show even mild aggression in similar spots (that tend to occur quite often)

imo they'll either give too much action (thinking "well he doesn't bet w/ the goods so he probably doesn't have 'em here") or too little action (thinking "jeez, if he doesn't even play 2pr strong he must have a monster now")

these are hyperboles but basically it can be possible that the bets he makes up in determining which opponents are thinking which way against him likely far outweight the one or two bet cost of playing this hand as slow as he did.

Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont see how you could possibly say w/ any degree of certainty that DS will somehow gain bets that 'far outweigh' those he may have lost here. i guess he indeed may simply be trying to mix up his play and make himself tough to read in similar future situations. your hypothesis seems very vague, nebulous, and speculative though, and there doesnt seem to be any way to really know for sure that you will somehow make up these lost bets b/c you checked three times w/ 2pair and never raised. maybe you are correct, but i dont think the benefits of playing 2pair like this 'far outweigh' bets he lost. perhaps he had a completely different rationale here (i.e. he saw OP as superaggro)

[/ QUOTE ]

i was just entertaining a possibility. what do you think "mixing up his play" is meant to accomplish? makes him tougher to read...i.e. he'll pick up pots (too little action) where he otherwise couldn't have or get too much action (too much action) where he again otherwise shouldn't based on the way some opponents may react to his playing a hand like this. of course my hypothesis is vague and nebulous...there is no way to know for sure thats what he was thinking. he gave up a (to many people) obvious big bet or so in the hand (namely not c'ring the river) and the only way that this is interesting is if he is logically thinking about why.

thats the assumption we're under so unless DS played an unthinking or totally uncaring hand, then there must be some reason as to why he chose the line he did. i was putting forth a hypothesis where ONE picked up small pot would already more than make up for the expectation of bets in a blind battle w/ A7o in the sb. i dont have the #s but im sure somebody has the expectation of A7o HU OOP in the sb. it's probably just under 1bb. saying he thought the OP was very agro makes even less sense though in terms of giving up expectation.

do you see why? [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

Barron

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that, if you are going to open-limp, then betting out on the flop is probably the right play, mainly in the hopes of inducing a bluff raise.

[/ QUOTE ]




it seems to me his opponent would have to bluff raise about half as often as he bluff bets for this to be true. very rare i would think, since most opponents bluff bet virtually every time.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand the river play, either. Perhaps he could argue that your range consists only of hands that aren't good enough to call a check-raise, or luckbox hands like T8 that made a straight. But, that wouldn't be a very good argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

why not, this could easily be the case. if we assume for instance that he bets most of his pairs on the turn. or that he will fold weak 2 pair to the raise.

[/ QUOTE ]


do many players fold a weak 2 pair in hands like this in blind situations?

[/ QUOTE ]

no. but as seemingly tight as david is, and how he played the hand, against HIM they might. hed basicallyb e saying "TP no goot" ... and if top pair aint goot...well, you know the rest assuming he aint bluffing [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Barron

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think that, if you are going to open-limp, then betting out on the flop is probably the right play, mainly in the hopes of inducing a bluff raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

it seems to me his opponent would have to bluff raise about half as often as he bluff bets for this to be true. very rare i would think, since most opponents bluff bet virtually every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there are more things to think about too. A bluff-raise occurs less often, but it also gets opponent to spew more bets when it happens, partly because IMO a bluff-raise is more likely to follow through on the turn. Also, if opponent has caught any piece of the board, then betting out is probably better.

[Robk]

[ QUOTE ]
do many players fold a weak 2 pair in hands like this in blind situations?

[/ QUOTE ]

the op said in this thread he would probably have folded if ds raised the river.

[Robk]

[ QUOTE ]

Well, there are more things to think about too. A bluff-raise occurs less often, but it also gets opponent to spew more bets when it happens, partly because IMO a bluff-raise is more likely to follow through on the turn. Also, if opponent has caught any piece of the board, then betting out is probably better

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with everything you said in this post, but i dont think these things matter as much as others. the most basic thing is the bb is more than a 2:1 favorite to have no pair, so that situation is right off the bat more important.

in that situation checking is better imo. the most likely situation by far is that if you bet he folds, but if you check he bets. so checking is 1 sb better there. occasionally he would have bluff raised and checking is a little more than one sb worse. also occasionally he would have folded to your bet but checks and catches a pair making checking 2+ sb better. of course also the rare times where he would have folded to your bet but wins the pot etc.

adding it all up i think his tendency to bluff raise would have to be unusually high to warrant betting.

in the case where he has a pair i agree that betting is better. but not that much better. his made hands are unlikely to be strong since an ace flopped and he would tend to raise with an ace preflop. against weaker hands i think how you play matters less since you wont be getting much action no matter what you do.

[Trix]

River seems pretty horrible, but rest can be defended.

[Bill King]

possibly a metagame move? he got it to showdown, with a resonably strong hand and for everybody to see, including Hero. sure, i think he missed a bet, but i am almost positive that he thinks he will gain a bet or two more down the road.

[Regis]

I suspect he was thinking about checkraising the river but the 5, 7, 9, J combination that could have made so many straights might have scared him off. Also and/or conversely, maybe he figured you wouldn't call a c/r without a hand that beat him but would 3B with one that did.

That being said, I think he should have bet the river and been willing to put in one more bet in if you raised. It would suck for him for you to check that through. Maybe he had a pretty good feeling you would bet on the river though.

[Boris]

So you didn't want to chop with Sklansky?

[mike l.]

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect he was thinking about black hookers

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP