TT in the SB (shorthanded)

[KitCloudkicker]

[ QUOTE ]
A4s, A6s, or A6o (which are in his range) and checks behind, but may also induce a bet from those hands and worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

these hands dont bet the river for you.

i seriously think we need to get out of the "inducing a bluff" mentality we have here. the situations where that play is correct are few and far between.

[Sushiglutton]

[ QUOTE ]
Betting does nothing for me. Villain's probably good enough to understand all this, so if I bet, I doubt he's going to call with OCs.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he always folds A-high in this spot, he should be ur new friend. Think about the odds ur getting on a river bluff and compare it to how big part of his range he will call with.
Voila: free money in future hands (when u in fact have nothing which will be often).

[Fadook]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A4s, A6s, or A6o (which are in his range) and checks behind, but may also induce a bet from those hands and worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

these hands dont bet the river for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how you can reconcile this with b/c. If he's aggressive enough to raise a weaker hand than mine on the river, can you really say he will not bet with A6?

[KitCloudkicker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A4s, A6s, or A6o (which are in his range) and checks behind, but may also induce a bet from those hands and worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

these hands dont bet the river for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how you can reconcile this with b/c. If he's aggressive enough to raise a weaker hand than mine on the river, can you really say he will not bet with A6?

[/ QUOTE ]

are you suggesting a b/f?

if so thats still better than c/c.

[Fadook]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A4s, A6s, or A6o (which are in his range) and checks behind, but may also induce a bet from those hands and worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

these hands dont bet the river for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how you can reconcile this with b/c. If he's aggressive enough to raise a weaker hand than mine on the river, can you really say he will not bet with A6?

[/ QUOTE ]

are you suggesting a b/f?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's definitely better than b/c. As to the whole question of whether checking or betting is better; I'm still not totally convinced that this particular player would call with A-hi or such and that betting is therefore superior, but then I've played several hundred hands against him and you haven't. I can accept though that against many other players with similar stats whom one might call solid tags, betting is better.

[larm]

I think i bet / call, i cant see him having jx, and i dont think i can fold the river hu. A change in the agression on the river can only be a badly played jx or perhaps J9s, if he has something, but i think its very unlikely. If an agressive player raises the river here, most of the time i read it as a missed flushdraw. On this specific board i think villian will mostly fold a FD and call with a smaller pair / ace high. I think this is a bad spot for inducing a bluff, but perhaps you can do it against the right opponent.

[KitCloudkicker]

[ QUOTE ]


I think that's definitely better than b/c. As to the whole question of whether checking or betting is better; I'm still not totally convinced that this particular player would call with A-hi or such and that betting is therefore superior, but then I've played several hundred hands against him and you haven't. I can accept though that against many other players with similar stats whom one might call solid tags, betting is better.

[/ QUOTE ]

do you have any evidence that he'd bluff the river when checked to?

[Fadook]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I think that's definitely better than b/c. As to the whole question of whether checking or betting is better; I'm still not totally convinced that this particular player would call with A-hi or such and that betting is therefore superior, but then I've played several hundred hands against him and you haven't. I can accept though that against many other players with similar stats whom one might call solid tags, betting is better.

[/ QUOTE ]

do you have any evidence that he'd bluff the river when checked to?

[/ QUOTE ]

After looking over the hands I've seen him showdown, I'd honestly have to say no. In fact, his river play seems a tad weak, which makes my whole "checking to induce a bluff" idea silly. That said, I really don't know how often he'll call with A-hi as losing hands that called aren't written to the hand history at OnGame sites. That's why I kinda have to rely heavily on stats reads when I'm playing.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I think that's definitely better than b/c. As to the whole question of whether checking or betting is better; I'm still not totally convinced that this particular player would call with A-hi or such and that betting is therefore superior, but then I've played several hundred hands against him and you haven't. I can accept though that against many other players with similar stats whom one might call solid tags, betting is better.

[/ QUOTE ]

do you have any evidence that he'd bluff the river when checked to?

[/ QUOTE ]

After looking over the hands I've seen him showdown, I'd honestly have to say no. In fact, his river play seems a tad weak, which makes my whole "checking to induce a bluff" idea silly. That said, I really don't know how often he'll call with A-hi as losing hands that called aren't written to the hand history at OnGame sites. That's why I kinda have to rely heavily on stats reads when I'm playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

When in doubt, value bet > inducing bluffs. There are also situations where it will be impossible to win any extra money on the river.

[larm]

In that case i think it is an easy valuebet, even though your not sure if he will call with ace high, he might call with A9s. As the hand played out, i think that he has a hard time putting you on a hand and he might be making a (crying) call with 55 A4s 9xs etc, but it depends on your history and what he thinks you are three barreling with HU.