|
|
#11
05-27-2007, 05:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL $600. Big bluff with AQ vs. a TAG regular (hand I viewed)
[ QUOTE ]
I mean, as played the 4bet is decent i guess, its just that I hate the raise to begin with. [/ QUOTE ] He has Ace high, he 'knows' his opponent has a small/mid pair - why wouldn't he raise if he thinks he can get a fold? 
|
|
#12
05-27-2007, 05:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL $600. Big bluff with AQ vs. a TAG regular (hand I viewed)
because his raise is implausible.
Think about it. The average player gets donkbet on this board with a big pair or flopped trips or a boat. Is he going to blow villain out of the pot with a raise? No, not usually. He's going to smooth call. If you were going to raise with a big hand on this flop, it would be because you are attempting to second level the villain and get paid. So essentially, what i'm getting at, is that you need to not only be sure that this villain is thinking on the fourth level, but you also need to be sure that he thinks you think that deeply. A much more plausible bluff vs a mediocre to decent villain would be to smoothcall the flop and raise most turns.
|
|
#14
05-27-2007, 06:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL $600. Big bluff with AQ vs. a TAG regular (hand I viewed)
[ QUOTE ]
because his raise is implausible. Think about it. The average player gets donkbet on this board with a big pair or flopped trips or a boat. Is he going to blow villain out of the pot with a raise? No, not usually. He's going to smooth call. If you were going to raise with a big hand on this flop, it would be because you are attempting to second level the villain and get paid. So essentially, what i'm getting at, is that you need to not only be sure that this villain is thinking on the fourth level, but you also need to be sure that he thinks you think that deeply. A much more plausible bluff vs a mediocre to decent villain would be to smoothcall the flop and raise most turns. [/ QUOTE ] Good post Dont like it at all. This is the Yeti theorem at its finest here.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
