|
|
#21
07-05-2006, 05:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 20/40 6m KK
[ QUOTE ]
(bet if checked, call if checkraised [subset of SpicyF theorem]) [/ QUOTE ] rob, kindly explain this. are you referring to the c/raising the river to save bets post. if so, how is this is a subset. if not, please let me know about what you are referring to. thanks, jonah 
|
|
#22
07-05-2006, 05:36 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 20/40 6m KK
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] (bet if checked, call if checkraised [subset of SpicyF theorem]) [/ QUOTE ] rob, kindly explain this. are you referring to the c/raising the river to save bets post. if so, how is this is a subset. if not, please let me know about what you are referring to. thanks, jonah [/ QUOTE ] Just saying that without having any reads whatsoever, many players at reasonable limits are capable of checkraising the river with AK and similar hands here to (what they might think) "save bets," and consequently, I'm neither 3betting nor folding to a river checkraise. Rob
|
|
#23
07-05-2006, 06:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 20/40 6m KK
[ QUOTE ]
The "he can't 5-bet" reasonsing is no good. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree. Most players (and almost every unknown) will lead the river when we are behind. If this is the case then 4-betting the turn in position with a 4 bet cap will result in winning one extra bet or losing one extra bet compared to just calling down. If he could 5-bet, then 4-betting the turn will usually result in winning one extra bet or losing two extra bets compared to just calling down. If he would instead checkraise the river when we are behind then the "he can't 5-bet argument" would be wrong. Where is my thinking flawed? Thanks, Cartman
|
|
#24
07-05-2006, 06:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 20/40 6m KK
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The "he can't 5-bet" reasonsing is no good. [/ QUOTE ] I disagree. Most players (and almost every unknown) will lead the river when we are behind. If this is the case then 4-betting the turn in position with a 4 bet cap will result in winning one extra bet or losing one extra bet compared to just calling down. If he could 5-bet, then 4-betting the turn will usually result in winning one extra bet or losing two extra bets compared to just calling down. If he would instead checkraise the river when we are behind then the "he can't 5-bet argument" would be wrong. Where is my thinking flawed? Thanks, Cartman [/ QUOTE ] It isn't flawed. That's why capping the turn and calling a river bet is the nuts here.
|
|
#25
07-05-2006, 06:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 20/40 6m KK
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Jason, you have a set. [/ QUOTE ] It was capped preflop, capped on the flop and is now 3-bets on the turn. Villain is unknown. I have already made it completely clear that I have a monster. [/ QUOTE ] he's sitting with 250 bb. that matters a lot. it means he obviously thinks $10,000 is a lot of money for 20/40, which means he ran his money up, which means he's terrible
|
|
#26
07-05-2006, 07:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 20/40 6m KK
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Jason, you have a set. [/ QUOTE ] It was capped preflop, capped on the flop and is now 3-bets on the turn. Villain is unknown. I have already made it completely clear that I have a monster. [/ QUOTE ] he's sitting with 250 bb. that matters a lot. it means he obviously thinks $10,000 is a lot of money for 20/40, which means he ran his money up, which means he's terrible [/ QUOTE ] This is why i love Josh, he is so rarely wrong.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
