Two 30/60 hands

[SA125]

In hand 1, unless he's dumb, he's telling you you're beat and you're not listening. But he's an unk and maybe he is dumb. Hand 2, you have a monster and it filled up. I guess 6th and 7th are questions. I'd bet both.

[blumpkin]

Regarding putting in more action on the river: would a reasonable player 3-bet the river against me with a straight or big trips the way the hand played out? If I had those hands in his shows I certainly would just call the check/raise. It really looks like I have what I have. In some respects, my river call is a crying call.

[Jeffage]

I definitely agree with this.

Jeff

[lstream]

I like Blumpkin's thinking here. I find as you move up in limits you need to give opponents more credit for making sensible plays. Until they prove themselves as not worthy that is [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]. So when a player is under suspicion for being good, you have to ask yourself "what does he think I have". In this case, a decent player has to put you on a boat - likely with trip twos. Without the check raise, he might put you on trip twos, which then makes capping the river easier to justify. So this is a long winded way of saying, I would just call here too.

[southerndog]

Lstream, you said what I was trying to say, but you put it a lot better.

If the guy couldn't beat a straight, and he put in 3 bets, he's a tard and it kind of makes the river discussion irrelevant. I know if I'm villain and I get checkraised on the river, I'm pissed and wishing I could fold, not happy and putting in more bets.

[SA125]

[ QUOTE ]
In hand 1, unless he's dumb, he's telling you you're beat and you're not listening. But he's an unk and maybe he is dumb. Hand 2, you have a monster and it filled up. I guess 6th and 7th are questions. I'd bet both.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding putting in more action on the river: would a reasonable player 3-bet the river against me with a straight or big trips the way the hand played out? If I had those hands in his shows I certainly would just call the check/raise. It really looks like I have what I have. In some respects, my river call is a crying call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Blump, help me out here. It's Sat morning and I'm a little congested, but that's not enough of a reason for me to be as lost as I am here. I've read our responses a few times and still not sure what you're saying. Yet others are getting it loud and clear, so I know it's me.

Hand 1 you bet and he raised the river. I guess the crying call is of that raise. I would have ch/called. Hand 2 you went for the c/r. I would have bet to not miss a bet. What more river action or 3 betting are you referring too?

[blumpkin]

[ QUOTE ]
Blump, help me out here. It's Sat morning and I'm a little congested, but that's not enough of a reason for me to be as lost as I am here. I've read our responses a few times and still not sure what you're saying. Yet others are getting it loud and clear, so I know it's me.

Hand 1 you bet and he raised the river. I guess the crying call is of that raise. I would have ch/called. Hand 2 you went for the c/r. I would have bet to not miss a bet. What more river action or 3 betting are you referring too?

[/ QUOTE ]

When I say "regarding more action on the river," I thought it was clear I am referring to hand 2 and the comments that people made saying I should cap the river after I check/raise and my opponent 3-bets. Basically, my thinking was that it really looks like I have trip deuces on 5th and improved on the river. Even if I didn't have trip deuces, it really looks like I improved on the river, and, assuming I had at least two pair on 5th, that means I have a full house on the river. Thus, if he's paying attention to my hand range and what I've been representing, it seems fairly obvious that he should not 3-bet the river without a full house, and consequently, it seems like a river cap on my part would be lighting money on fire, and I'm pretty much calling (the "cry-call" I was referring to) with the hope that he was overplaying his straight or unimproved higher trips, or somehow on a huge multi-street I've-lost-my-mind bluff spew.

Recall that on 5th, I check/raised and my opponent 3-bet. I thought it was pretty clear I was probably beat (either with T7 in the hole or to higher trips). Note that T7 would make him open-ended on 4th street and thus possibly willing to call a double sized bet versus my paired door card. At that point I was in call-down mode trying to improve and was going to call the river hoping he had just two pair or was semi-bluffing with JT in the hole (which would also make him open-ended on 4th so he could call that double bet).

In regards to your comment about betting out instead of check/raising the river, I think the check/raise is better. He has been leading the action and there is little reason to think he will not bet his hand. The only reason to bet would be with the intention of bet/3-betting, but that is too risky IMO because he might just call with a straight or trips, but will definitely raise if I'm beat. So unless I'm willing to bet/3-bet and fold to a cap (quite absurd most would agree), I think check/raising and calling a 3-bet is the clear play.

[SA125]

[ QUOTE ]
When I say "regarding more action on the river," I thought it was clear I am referring to hand 2 and the comments that people made saying I should cap the river after I check/raise and my opponent 3-bets. Basically, my thinking was that it really looks like I have trip deuces on 5th and improved on the river. Even if I didn't have trip deuces, it really looks like I improved on the river, and, assuming I had at least two pair on 5th, that means I have a full house on the river. Thus, if he's paying attention to my hand range and what I've been representing, it seems fairly obvious that he should not 3-bet the river without a full house, and consequently, it seems like a river cap on my part would be lighting money on fire, and I'm pretty much calling (the "cry-call" I was referring to) with the hope that he was overplaying his straight or unimproved higher trips, or somehow on a huge multi-street I've-lost-my-mind bluff spew.

Recall that on 5th, I check/raised and my opponent 3-bet. I thought it was pretty clear I was probably beat (either with T7 in the hole or to higher trips). Note that T7 would make him open-ended on 4th street and thus possibly willing to call a double sized bet versus my paired door card. At that point I was in call-down mode trying to improve and was going to call the river hoping he had just two pair or was semi-bluffing with JT in the hole (which would also make him open-ended on 4th so he could call that double bet).

In regards to your comment about betting out instead of check/raising the river, I think the check/raise is better. He has been leading the action and there is little reason to think he will not bet his hand. The only reason to bet would be with the intention of bet/3-betting, but that is too risky IMO because he might just call with a straight or trips, but will definitely raise if I'm beat. So unless I'm willing to bet/3-bet and fold to a cap (quite absurd most would agree), I think check/raising and calling a 3-bet is the clear play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry for asking for the long version. Well said. Tx. NH.

[blumpkin]

Hand 1:
I lost to three Jacks.

Hand 2:
I won. He had a J-high straight.