|
|
#41
08-16-2006, 10:34 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: $109s Stupid Preflop AA Question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] just make a good sized raise... jeez. [/ QUOTE ] Do you intentionally respond to old posts? [/ QUOTE ] sorry if that didnt come out right.. but you would have to try if you wanted to play this hand wrong... any raise more than 5x is good... [/ QUOTE ] I saw you respond to two of my threads after they are down on the bottom couple pages, and with your location I'm not sure if you intentionally respond late or it's just a weir coincedence. As for people saying I will have a weird flop play on a kj9 two tone board. My play is push on pretty much any flop. 
|
|
#42
08-16-2006, 11:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: $109s Stupid Preflop AA Question
[ QUOTE ]
As for people saying I will have a weird flop play on a kj9 two tone board. My play is push on pretty much any flop. [/ QUOTE ] Then you are giving the needed implied odds for someone to call purely for set value with an underpair, if your raise is to T325-T350.
|
|
#43
08-16-2006, 11:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: $109s Stupid Preflop AA Question
Exactly why you don't want to give people a reason to be calling pre... they likely know their implied odds are quite good... make them incorrect to call.
|
|
#44
08-16-2006, 10:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: $109s Stupid Preflop AA Question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] just make a good sized raise... jeez. [/ QUOTE ] Do you intentionally respond to old posts? [/ QUOTE ] he'll get back to you in a couple weeks [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] fwiw, i would either raise to 300-350 or push. i'd usually just go to ~325. [/ QUOTE ] I'd love this thread to keep going because I strongly disagreee with the ~300-325 crowd. Any thoughts on why you'd do that? I kind of posted why I don't like it above. [/ QUOTE ] this is an interesting hand, much more so that i thought initially. i didn't have any great reasoning behind 300-350. i'd revise it upward a little to 350-375, and let me give some reasoning... you and others seem to be approaching this hand with some different basic assumptions than me. i think it would be pretty bad to just steal the limps right now. a lot of people are talking about implied odds for someone holding a small pair, and the idea that we need to make it incorrect for them to call. i have a couple of problems with this idea. against a villain known to be holding a smallish pp who will not play moronically, sure, it'd be good to not give them implied odds. BUT - smallish pp is only a small fraction of any particular villain's range. i'm not basing my whole strategy around that small range. also, many people will be dumb and lose a lot of chips when their pp does not hit. - what's more important is keeping people with crap like KJ or QTs around. they don't know it, but they have huge reverse implied odds, because tehy will get a-i with top pair. you really don't want those guys to fold. it'd be great to get to play against those two hands. it's (almost) like when you have a FH and you make a bet that will induce a flush draw to stay. - this is tiny, so don't harp on it: if you raise to 350 instead of 575, somebody might do something stupid and try to iso you with 77, believing they have fe (whereas if you raise bigger than you're pretty clearly tied to the pot). you talk about the domino effect like it's a bad thing. i'm not too unhappy to have a number of people around. i'm getting a lot of money in preflop as a big favorite, which is obviously good. and i'm making it likely that there's somebody around to stack. RECAP you (and others): too concerned with letting a good opponent make a profitable implied odds call me: i want to get chips in preflop with very low risk of winning pot pre and don't mind playing multiway because it gives me somebody to stack.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
