|
|
#11
03-13-2006, 07:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: setting 99
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] uhh... what? [/ QUOTE ] get more bets in on the flop. you worry too much if every 3 gapped cards constitute a straight hitting on the river. your flop and turn play make no sense. [/ QUOTE ] p.160 SSH 
|
|
#12
03-13-2006, 07:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: setting 99
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] uhh... what? [/ QUOTE ] get more bets in on the flop. you worry too much if every 3 gapped cards constitute a straight hitting on the river. your flop and turn play make no sense. [/ QUOTE ] p.160 SSH [/ QUOTE ] i forgot to memorize that page, sorry.
|
|
#13
03-13-2006, 07:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: setting 99
You are misapplying. The hand on p. 160 is much more vulurable, and it has a weaker redraw if beaten on the turn. Your set will fill up about 1/3 of the time to beat any straights.
|
|
#14
03-13-2006, 07:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: setting 99
i dont mind this.
in game i probably c/r the flop but this is ok
|
|
#15
03-13-2006, 07:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: setting 99
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] uhh... what? [/ QUOTE ] get more bets in on the flop. you worry too much if every 3 gapped cards constitute a straight hitting on the river. your flop and turn play make no sense. [/ QUOTE ] p.160 SSH [/ QUOTE ] You are definately misinterpreting this section of SSH. Read it over a couple times and if you have any specific questions I'll try to help.
|
|
#16
03-13-2006, 07:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: setting 99
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] uhh... what? [/ QUOTE ] get more bets in on the flop. you worry too much if every 3 gapped cards constitute a straight hitting on the river. your flop and turn play make no sense. [/ QUOTE ] p.160 SSH [/ QUOTE ] You are definately misinterpreting this section of SSH. Read it over a couple times and if you have any specific questions I'll try to help. [/ QUOTE ] i was afraid i might be- does a line like this require a more coordinated board than the one in my hand?
|
|
#17
03-13-2006, 07:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: setting 99
Ok I'm taking a shot at this.
Reading over page 160 in SSH i see at least 2 major differences between the exazmple given and this hand. In the example we are talking about bottom 2 pair against a board that has flush draws, straight draws, and high cards. In this hand there is a straight draw and high cards but u have a set which is better than 2 pair. Consequently this is not as much a protection play as it is a value bet. I am not good with the math and correct me if I am wrong but u have as good a chance of improving to a full house as anyone does of making the straight. Also, in the book the bettor is coming from your left not your right as is the case here. Michael
|
|
#18
03-13-2006, 08:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: setting 99
Bottom two pair is very vulnurable since if any of the higher cards pair, it counterfeits your two pairs. Your hand now is extremely strong, your equity is huge and your primary concern should be to get the most money into the pot.
I know it's been said, but raising the turn here doesn't protect your hand. UTG is getting 12.75-1, enough to call with any gutshot. The only way you can reasonably protect is to bet out and hope MP3 raises. When I saw the hand, I assumed you just called the flop so you could check-raise the turn for maximum value, not for protection. A check-raise on the turn signalises a lot more strength than on the flop, so I would probably check-raise the flop, hoping villain has a high ace or even two pairs, thus capping the flop.
|
|
#20
03-13-2006, 09:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: setting 99
The key differences is that there is no card in your hand that could fall on the turn that is so bad that you are probably are beat - and even if you are behind on the turn you have a lot of outs to a full house.
In the SSH example a lot of cards either put four to a straight on the board or counterfeit your two pair - and you are either drawing to two outs or are drawing dead.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
