|
|
#22
08-15-2006, 01:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: How\'s this line?
[ QUOTE ]
Often has a hand range of what? That just proves my point. You have a read on this guy for 2 orbits, does he play like most guys? No. He folded around twice. He bet out of postion, he raised against a BB on a coordinated and paired middle board not once but twice. These are not the moves of a typical opponent. Bet away with math here on your side, but I have better use for my money against these tables than this. [/ QUOTE ] This is a fallacy of overweighting a weak read. Is he like "most guys"? Nope. He's like "most guys who have something that resembles hand selection". As I pointed out before, you don't know anything about the conditions that have led him to fold for a couple orbits. It could have been that there were lots of raises going on and he plays tight against raises. Against this type of player, continuation bets into the turn are more common than not, especially on ragged boards. [ QUOTE ] Mathematically, I ran a trial with that board against an opponent that plays 6% of his hands preflop (which is a likely the case as he raised it and has folded 100% prior) [/ QUOTE ] There are very very very few players who play fewer than 10% of their hands. 6% is a very unlikely number and it's likely that the sample given is an outlier. [ QUOTE ] Out of 3.17 million simulations you win 50% on the river heads up against that opponent. I raise 15% of my hands. In middle position I raise around 12%. So lets put him at 16% range of starters he would raise as a really bad worse case possibility ( he had 27o 12 times in a row for example) In 3.11 million simulations A7 diamonds wins against that opponent 57% of the time. [/ QUOTE ] Ummmmm... these look like hot-cold simluations. I hate hot-cold simulations for heads up play because it negates all postflop skill, and most of the advantages you have in heads up pots results from your postflop skill. This does not address the question of whether you can check-raise your opponent off a better hand. [ QUOTE ] If you are playing me go ahead and raise. Otherwise I don't think its a good plan. [/ QUOTE ] If this is the case, then you should consider folding the flop and not even getting to the turn. If you're peeling the flop it's because you think you have a reasonable chance of holding the best hand or being able to take the pot away from villain on the turn or river. 
|
|
#23
08-15-2006, 02:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How\'s this line?
This is real cool Aaron because now I understand a lot of why poker is played in this situation over and over again.
Could never understand why people lose money to rocks over and over again. Now I know. 50% of the time you are bang on in your read or as you say 66% of the time you are right. And you are right Aaron 100% of the time I don't lose money in this hand beyond the call for the flop. I never would have peeled on the flop.
|
|
#26
08-15-2006, 08:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How\'s this line?
grunch
Flop call is thin, I think. You have an over (potentially dominated) 1.5 outs, BDFD 1.5 outs, BDSD 1.5 outs and maybe the 7 is also an out, say 1 out. So we have 5.5 outs. Turn is a good semi-bluff I think, provided (1) villain is a thinking player who is capable of folding AK or a very timid player capable of folding a pp if he thinks you represent a 6, and (2) you don't do that too often. Iirc, HEPFAP suggests this play at times. It's even stronger if you pick up the 1 card nut flush draw, because then you represent the made flush. Remember, however, not to make that play too often.
|
|
#27
08-15-2006, 08:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How\'s this line?
[ QUOTE ]
I don't like it because you are OOP. [/ QUOTE ] I think this is a strong move because we are out of position. A (semi) bluff check/raise at the proper time against the proper player is definitely strong. Most thinking players piss themselves when they're checkraised on the turn, esp. on a paired board. That doesn't mean one should try this every time.
|
|
#28
08-15-2006, 09:54 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How\'s this line?
O.K., time for me come in with some red pen regarding some of the issues in this thread:
Villain only playing 1 hand in two orbits is not a strong read, but neither is it no read at all. We can assume at least that he has a fairly decent holding, but not more than this. This weak a read alone is not sufficient reason to give up on the flop. His bet on the flop is not a bet that must mean, "I have an overpair or a better ace every (or the majority of the) time." We just do not have enough information on this player to adequately make such an assessment. We call on the flop because: there is a decent chance we are ahead; we have some number of outs if we are behind; we can set up a delayed steal semi-bluff (like this one). When Villain bets again on the turn, we have more information on his range, but this bet does not totally determine that we are behind, and now we have picked up the nut flush draw. Now, whether or not you are comfortable making such a play is another matter. And I concede that finding a good line on this board is not easy, and it's not a hugely +EV situation. But the fact of the matter is that we can't just decide that Villain must be a rock with this weak a read and use that as our reason for giving up on this situation.
|
|
#29
08-15-2006, 12:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How\'s this line?
Excellent point DrModern. One we should consider in our decision more than we do and it seems like a good compromise to the I have no read therefore he is like every other player vs he is a rock.
But I still heed this advice.... All the industry used in military discipline is used in order to be organized to undertake an engagement with your enemy, as this is the end toward which a captain must aim. - Machiavelli Discipline against an unknown foe is your best option.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
