a couple of hands where i call guys down with high card

[cs3]

[ QUOTE ]


what "bluffs" beat me in either hand?



[/ QUOTE ]

hand 2: 44, 66, any gutshot he called the flop with that paired

and fwiw i dont think the majority of his range is bluffs in either hand.
why would you call and not raise? honest question

[tannenj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


what "bluffs" beat me in either hand?



[/ QUOTE ]

hand 2: 44, 66, any gutshot he called the flop with that paired

and fwiw i dont think the majority of his range is bluffs in either hand.
why would you call and not raise? honest question

[/ QUOTE ]

what hand do you think is good enough to just call? 7x? 66? 44?

[gimmetheloot]

T:

H1: fine.

H2: meh, I dont call unless i have seen him peel with high cards or pull this [censored] before. Bluffy or not.

[cs3]

[ QUOTE ]


what hand do you think is good enough to just call? 7x? 66? 44?

[/ QUOTE ]

if you're referring to hand 2 then i really think youre beat a lot. the only hand i can see you beating is 68s. i would need at least a 7 and a better read to call.

[tannenj]

about hand 2:

the thing about hands like these is they're feel plays, which makes me kind of hesitant to post them for analysis. however, i think it's still worthwhile to analyze them to an extent.

in hand 2, i just don't see what he could be making such a big bet with for value. it makes no sense. i actually snap called.

why would he turn a 7 into a bluff on the river? maybe i'm just a station, but i've been looking villains up lately when their lines make no sense, and i think you'd be surprised at how often their hand bears no relation whatsoever to the board.

[tannenj]

meh, both villains folded.

obviously that doesn't mean either play was +EV, and both were feel plays. but at the same time, i think some of you guys are underusing hand reading -- even against lagfish.