|
|
|
|
#1
11-26-2007, 05:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Macau 15k Hand
I dunno, I mean almost always playing it the same, but I can't help but feel in the backwards world of live poker that you're rarely getting called by anything worse than a flush here, and that it's possible this bet is closer to a bluff than value bet, even against this guy. I think betting smaller is the way to go and folding to a raise, but even checking behind doesn't seem that unreasonable to me.
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] This sounds really nitty but I think I want to check river [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] that does sound really nitty, and I'm king nit [/ QUOTE ] HU4NITS? j/k I'm way too nitty to play HU 
|
|
#3
11-26-2007, 03:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Macau 15k Hand
Given what we know about Scott, his calls on the flop and turn mean he had either trips of flush. If he had trips, he just turned ahead on the river, and even if he has a flush, and even if he could call with raggs like 2-3s, you're behind (as there are 4 spades above your 8 and four below, so the median hand would be 9 or T high). This said, we can probably discard the ace-high, as he would have bet it. King high maybe too ...
Anyway, the only "likely" hands you beat are 6-4 and 6-7 of spades. So the question is whether you can bluff him or not, not whether you will value bet. I would tend to think he has rather flush than trips, so maybe you can make him fold most flushes by bluffing all-in on the river ... I guess this was the meaning of your bet ? And what did he do ? Did he fold and show a T-high flush ? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I hope I don't have everything wrong ... looking forward to know the end of the story [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#5
11-26-2007, 03:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Macau 15k Hand
[ QUOTE ]
not sure i like it, against described villain, im not sure he ever calls with a worst hand except like AsJ or something, i think i bet/fold small. [/ QUOTE ] This might actually be better than just checking since we know we're beat since he can't run an elaborate bluff here. I just hate shoving because 99.999% of the time you're ahead you take it down without showdown (does have value IMO) and 100% of the time you're beat you get stacked, so I mean, I think shoving is hugely -EV
|
|
#6
11-26-2007, 04:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Macau 15k Hand
preflop seems really miserable imo and really is the most glaring part of the hand. i think bond does this too much whenever i read his live reports.
by all means continue if you have a hold of the table and are playing really well (eg a good version of Mohammed Kowssarie), but otherwise it just serves as overly loose passive and not really suitable given the game conditions. and to elaborate, when it feels like the optimal line against these players is Jared's suggestion imo (bet small all three streets), then preflop cant possibly be optimal when its guaranteed to be that multiway
|
|
#10
11-26-2007, 11:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Macau 15k Hand
[ QUOTE ]
i think live a smaller bet on the river is much better.... unless you are bluffing. [/ QUOTE ] I think you're bluffing on this river frequently here. If we're discounting a boat because we think he would have bet the river, what is the purpose of the bet -- to get looked up by AQ (not happening given your description of the Villain)? To fold out a bigger flush? To get action from a 7, 6 or 3 high flush? I would never bet the river for value here, I don't think I like (but don't hate) jamming as a bluff (especially given the way the guy played the KK hand -- c/c'ing with an overpair, expressing willingness to call on the river because he had to -- he could easily play a bigger flush the same way here, but another flush is always very unlikely). Unless the limpers have shown a propensity to limp/reraise, I call all day here pre.
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
