#11
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL200 2pairs, against aggro
Yeah, you did not provide enough information. Yugoslav, AJ? Would he check call OOP AJ twice?
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL200 2pairs, against aggro
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, you did not provide enough information. Yugoslav, AJ? Would he check call OOP AJ twice? [/ QUOTE ] No. No he wouldn't. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I'd explain why I thought that could be in his range. But, yeah, it was a phantom thought. Yugoslav |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL200 2pairs, against aggro
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Yeah, you did not provide enough information. Yugoslav, AJ? Would he check call OOP AJ twice? [/ QUOTE ] No. No he wouldn't. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I'd explain why I thought that could be in his range. But, yeah, it was a phantom thought. Yugoslav [/ QUOTE ] I would be interested in hearing an explanation for that. (I am serious, not ironic). [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL200 2pairs, against aggro
[ QUOTE ]
Fold. [/ QUOTE ] explain? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL200 2pairs, against aggro
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Yeah, you did not provide enough information. Yugoslav, AJ? Would he check call OOP AJ twice? [/ QUOTE ] No. No he wouldn't. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I'd explain why I thought that could be in his range. But, yeah, it was a phantom thought. Yugoslav [/ QUOTE ] I would be interested in hearing an explanation for that. (I am serious, not ironic). [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Eh well I went back through my mind of hands he could have after the flop action. And AJ was still in the range...and then I jotted down that range. And then a turn range. And then got the ranges confused when answering! The problem with ranges for me is that I don't know how to weight the likelihood of them. So like, sure the dude could have Q7 or maybe Q6 but like, does he really call them preflop AND the flop AND turn? Some opponents will sometimes, I dno. The only hand for sure that makes sense with the action is like J9 and QT possibly (still likely to fold on turn), or KQ. One thing I originally didn't think about was suited diamond hands with a K,7, or T. Those definitely can be in the range and be trying to bluff at the river since the pot:stack ratio is somewhat close to 1:1. Anyway, even though he's 100% playing J9 (and KQ) like that on the river and bluffing the rest of his range a much smaller %, it seems like a call is profitable. Yugoslav |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL200 2pairs, against aggro
Snap call.
Opponent as described will play this with almost every other 2pr on the board. Also, if I'm understanding the situation correctly (100BBs to start?), you only need to win less than 1/3 of the time for a call to be correct. I'm going to run this through Poker Stove when I get home, but I'm guessing you're winning this over 50% of the time. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL200 2pairs, against aggro
[ QUOTE ]
LJ, Are you only being shown J9 here? That's the only hand I can put villain on that beats us other than some weirdo set. [/ QUOTE ] KQ, 89, J9 are all in his range. |
|
|