#21
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Call three barrels with 99?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] omg there is some terrible advice in this thread... raise flop? lollll call turn occasionally, i'd never call river and fold it on the turn most of the time unless there has been recent history [/ QUOTE ] I think you just said what everyone else in this thread said. Everyone who commented on flop said to raise. And everyone who commented on turn/river said to fold. lollll [/ QUOTE ] i'm loling at people who said to raise the flop |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Call three barrels with 99?
[ QUOTE ]
Problem is most bluffs got there (well they beat you)... [/ QUOTE ] hmmm, I guess. the 10 doesn't help anyway. who is that in your avatar btw? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Call three barrels with 99?
[ QUOTE ]
pot is already growing bigger than what our hand can stand. [/ QUOTE ] So you want to... raise? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Call three barrels with 99?
[ QUOTE ]
sorry but why are we not raising the flop? we need to define our hand there because we cant wait another street, pot is already growing bigger than what our hand can stand. I always raise flop and shut down from there. Also against nitty villian's UTG raise I can fold 99. [/ QUOTE ] wow just so many things wrong with this post. you can call 99 for set value only if someone is that nitty. and if you say they're never paying you off if you hit a set then great, you can just move them off their hand. i can't think of a single situation where it would be correct to fold 99 to a UTG raise from someone with a full stack. as for raising flop... why do you want to make the pot bigger when you already think it's too big? the only thing you're worried about is him hitting a 6 outer with overcards. calling flop and turn puts in the same amount of money as a flop raise and allows us to extract from overcards that decide to double barrel. there's 2 good reasons for raising the flop: #1 for value, because you've both been playing aggro and you think it's +EV to raise and get it in #2 you're trying to move him off an overpair (which is totally insane 99% of the time) |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Call three barrels with 99?
i was just praying he didn't mean he would fold 99 pf!
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Call three barrels with 99?
hm apparently I am a moron.
Folding 99 preflop. why not? we are behind his range, and whats behind us is only 4 more active players who will wake up with TT+,AK about 13% of the time. I doubt we can play 99 more profitable postflop then what we lose by our preflop call. If villian has like 88- in his raising range calling is clearly right but as it it folding preflop is at least not a big mistake. raising flop vs calling twice. I guess calling twice is superior if the money we win when he 2 barrels is bigger then the money we lose when he hits his 6 outer. against a nit thats not a givin, but I guess it still is the case. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Call three barrels with 99?
[ QUOTE ]
hm apparently I am a moron. Folding 99 preflop. why not? we are behind his range, and whats behind is only 4 more active players who will wake up with TT+,AK about 13% of the time. I doubt we can play 99 more profitable postflop then what we lose by our preflop call. If villian has like 88- in his raising range caling is clearly right but as it it folding preflop is at least not a big mistake. raising flop vs calling twice. I guess calling twice is superior if the money we win when he 2 barrels is bigger then the money we lose when he hits his 6 outer. against a nit thats not a givin, but I guess it still is the case. [/ QUOTE ] lol at folding a PP PF to a nitty UTG raiser with a full stack. JUST WOW. Also, if we don't get him to stack off enough when we flop a set then we should still call, DUCY? |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Call three barrels with 99?
folding pf is insane.
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Call three barrels with 99?
woops, fd up on the stove, I'll repost when I corrected it
[img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img] |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Call three barrels with 99?
cowboy what youre saying is that he always 3 barreling with AK but never with AQ. Both assumptions are wrong.
|
|
|