this could be painful - Page 3

anduril · #21 03-19-2006, 02:51 PM

I concur. I called, UTG+1 called. I got there with a 7. They both had sets. Would've been better if it were a diamond so that they could go nuts that I got there with "runner runner."

MDMA · #22 03-19-2006, 05:27 PM

I'm a little bit troubled by this. If you've got such a great "read" that, by deducing from his flopbet that he has a exactly a set, then why don't you just fold the flop?

PNHH · #23 03-19-2006, 06:58 PM

I call the river.

Is your preflop raise standard? I have a very hard time seeing what it accomplishes.

anduril · #24 03-19-2006, 10:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I call the river.

Is your preflop raise standard? I have a very hard time seeing what it accomplishes.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you meant the turn. I wouldn't call it standard, but I was making a pot building raise in position against 2 poor players who don't even understand that my raise is a pot builder and not a big one.

anduril · #25 03-19-2006, 10:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a little bit troubled by this. If you've got such a great "read" that, by deducing from his flopbet that he has a exactly a set, then why don't you just fold the flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

because I have 8 clean outs with a backdoor against someone who give too much action PoF.

MDMA · #26 03-20-2006, 12:46 AM

Yes, you have 8 clean outs against mr set, but what about the guy in between? Furthermore, when you miss turn youll have to fold (unless in this rare circumstance when you pick up a backdoor AND have reason to believe both players are gonna get their chips in, and still, it's close even then). And, most important, when you do hit, Mr.Set is not gonna give you even one more chip since all your "clean outs" makes a 4-straight, and you might very well be splitting(or get raped by 85s or something) with the other guy in the pot.

Just fold the flop if you can be 100% sure of the fact that the guy leading has a set on the flop.

fsuplayer · #27 03-20-2006, 12:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Just fold the flop if you can be 100% sure of the fact that the guy leading has a set on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

what?? no.

MDMA · #28 03-20-2006, 01:42 AM

Hey FSU, I also think it's pretty much impossible to "narrow down utg+1's HD into three possible sets just by the lead on the flop", and I will of course never fold in this spot either, just because such a read doesn't exist. I'm just saying like this: If you saw his cards and saw a set, wouldn't you fold, and, according to anduril, he was 100% sure of this fact. If one is 100% sure it is the same as seeing his cards, and, given that, he should have folded (however unrealistical this scenario is.)

Spladle · #29 03-20-2006, 01:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hey FSU, I also think it's pretty much impossible to "narrow down utg+1's HD into three possible sets just by the lead on the flop", and I will of course never fold in this spot either, just because such a read doesn't exist. I'm just saying like this: If you saw his cards and saw a set, wouldn't you fold, and, according to anduril, he was 100% sure of this fact. If one is 100% sure it is the same as seeing his cards, and, given that, he should have folded (however unrealistical this scenario is.)

[/ QUOTE ]
Flop fold would be pretty bad in the scenario you describe.

anduril · #30 03-20-2006, 02:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Just fold the flop if you can be 100% sure of the fact that the guy leading has a set on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

eeeewwwwwww. If I planned on folding to that flop then I wouldnt've made a pot building raise pf in the first place. As far as my read is concerned, I gave a narrow range based on playing over 4k hands with this person who is not good and easily readable. I'll change it to 99% only because I didn't see his cards until the river. That better?