NL200 - QTs - Good Time for a Second Barrel?

[jhill3535]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ill take that line sometimes, but like almost never. Thats just my preference. But I will do it, especially because not only can u stack him if u hit your GS, but youll do wonders for your image if you get to show it down

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO image plays should only be made when the play has a chance to work. Don't go out firing 2 barrels just for the sake that it will look good for your image if you get called down. Do it because it has a good chance of winning the pot for you. If it doesn't work, then you can consider the metagame/image reprecussions and adjust accordingly.

This very similar to mixing up how you play hands. You shouldn't mix up how you play particular hands if one way is +EV and one is -EV. Save your mixing it up plays for situations where both choices have roughly the same EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really think this is -EV? Explain why you think this is only an image building/metagame play? I think this works a good amount of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

You bet 3/4 of the pot, so it it needs to work about 3 out of 4 times assuming you never improve to the best hand on the river. I don't know if that is possible.

I was more making a general statement. I said previously that I liked the Ace hitting for a second barrel.

[jhill3535]

[ QUOTE ]
nah, i wouldn't bet here given his stack size and that he's fishy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't you also consider how his stack got to that level. If he has slowly bled off from a full stack, I would be more likely to double barrel than if he bought in short.

[Renton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
nah, i wouldn't bet here given his stack size and that he's fishy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't you also consider how his stack got to that level. If he has slowly bled off from a full stack, I would be more likely to double barrel than if he bought in short.

[/ QUOTE ]


i don't think it makes a big difference. 1/2 stacks stack off light, it doesn't matter how well they play, its just a fundamental fact of shortstacking.

Also, if he bought in short i'd give him credit for being a fish. If he bought in full and lost down to that, i'd give him credit for being a desperate fish.

[DjSkyy]

[ QUOTE ]


You bet 3/4 of the pot, so it it needs to work about 3 out of 4 times assuming you never improve to the best hand on the river. I don't know if that is possible.


[/ QUOTE ]

doesn't that mean that it has to work 3 out of 7 times? - like 3 times you win 4/4 of the the pot and 4 times you lose 3/4 of the pot, aka 3 times u win $100, 4 times u lose $75... and you break even

[jhill3535]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
nah, i wouldn't bet here given his stack size and that he's fishy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't you also consider how his stack got to that level. If he has slowly bled off from a full stack, I would be more likely to double barrel than if he bought in short.

[/ QUOTE ]


i don't think it makes a big difference. 1/2 stacks stack off light, it doesn't matter how well they play, its just a fundamental fact of shortstacking.

Also, if he bought in short i'd give him credit for being a fish. If he bought in full and lost down to that, i'd give him credit for being a desperate fish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Point well taken

[jhill3535]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


You bet 3/4 of the pot, so it it needs to work about 3 out of 4 times assuming you never improve to the best hand on the river. I don't know if that is possible.


[/ QUOTE ]

doesn't that mean that it has to work 3 out of 7 times? - like 3 times you win 4/4 of the the pot and 4 times you lose 3/4 of the pot, aka 3 times u win $100, 4 times u lose $75... and you break even

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what I was thinking....you are correct