|
|
#21
08-03-2007, 03:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: My line w/AA
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] If you frequently double-barrel with air, you should bet this turn for sure. If you don't very often, this is fine as long as you call. [/ QUOTE ] fallacious argument in this case [/ QUOTE ] Ok...why? I pointed out that if you double barrel frequently (which I do), you should be betting this turn under almost all circumstances. If you do not, then it is fine to check behind for pot control sometimes, but you have now underepped your hand and should call the river bet. Tell me why this reasoning is off. Also: lol at using fallacious [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] i was trying to sound articulate and proffesional [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] i meant that making a play in order to widen your range in this spot is pointless against an unknown. You only have to start mixing it up when you and villain have a little history (doesnt have to be much; could just be the knowledge that he is decent and probably has datamined hands on you for example). i always bet this turn and i never double barrel against this guy (quite bad and little history) on this board. So my range is only good hands, and that's fine. I suck at explanations, sorry. I'll try to elaborate if you don't get what I'm saying 
|
|
#23
08-03-2007, 03:58 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My line w/AA
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'm betting this for value, not for some metagame [censored] [/ QUOTE ] what i mentioned has nothing to do with metagame [/ QUOTE ] Elaborate further, please. I think you are getting at concepts that GP and aba use a lot, about basically playing millions of hands and evaluating what kinds of hands you are putting in money with, and whether or not the range of hands you are doing it with is +EV (i.e., ONE villain's perception of this range does not matter much), but I am not sure. Am I on the right track? [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, something like that. Basically you don't need to bet AA here to have your double barrel range with air be profitable. You can still double barrel with some % of your range, bet another % for value and it can be technically correct to check another % (both made and air). This hand is actually not a great example of what I mean because there is so much value in a bet here. Replace AA with JT and the above holds more true, maybe even with AT but that is getting close to a VB.
|
|
#24
08-03-2007, 04:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My line w/AA
Another point is that you don`t have to bet AA here every time for your double barrels to be credible. Mixing up your play here is fine sometimes especially against thinking opponents, or when your image is tight (get value on river instead)
|
|
#25
08-03-2007, 04:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My line w/AA
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] I'm betting this for value, not for some metagame [censored] [/ QUOTE ] what i mentioned has nothing to do with metagame [/ QUOTE ] Elaborate further, please. I think you are getting at concepts that GP and aba use a lot, about basically playing millions of hands and evaluating what kinds of hands you are putting in money with, and whether or not the range of hands you are doing it with is +EV (i.e., ONE villain's perception of this range does not matter much), but I am not sure. Am I on the right track? [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, something like that. Basically you don't need to bet AA here to have your double barrel range with air be profitable. You can still double barrel with some % of your range, bet another % for value and it can be technically correct to check another % (both made and air). This hand is actually not a great example of what I mean because there is so much value in a bet here. Replace AA with JT and the above holds more true, maybe even with AT but that is getting close to a VB. [/ QUOTE ] I know this, but I am wondering what you mean when you say that this has nothing to do with metagame? The definition of metagame is probably really vague, but you are writing about sounds like it has a lot to do with how people perceive your betting ranges to be, which sounds a lot like what we label metagame? I'm not trying to be contrarian, just genuinely confused. Again, I might be thinking of something different under "metagame" than you are.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
