|
|
#31
07-19-2007, 01:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: ATs vs. TAG
Action flop ftw.
I like the call/call line if the turn is a blank. I'm not stacking off with this hand against a TAG, I'm trying to keep it under control, for the most part. If he checks the blank turn obv bet and bet the river if he checks. I'm not exactly looking to build a big pot by raising unless we hit the Ace or turn. 
|
|
#32
07-19-2007, 02:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ATs vs. TAG
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] To all saying call, call, call. Turn and river bricks. Villain bets 115 in 130, you call? Personally I call ~95 or less. Calling a big bet on the river vs an unknown tag is bad imo. He's almost never bluffing 3 streets in a row on this board and I doubt he's valuebetting this big with a worse hand. Keep in mind villain raised from UTG, there's not a ton of possible lower Ax two pair combos. [/ QUOTE ] Nick I see what you're saying, but you also have to consider what he thinks we may have ... if we flat call flop, our hand could be AT, but it also looks like AJ/AQ/KQ/KJ hoping to hit a 4 outer ... [/ QUOTE ] So you think he'll bet 115 as a bluff? I strongly disagree. He will not vb 115 with AQ hoping for a call from AJ. He'll probably bet 75-90 with AQ if he decides to bet, hoping to get calls from Ax. That's why I'm calling a 90ish or less bet but I fold if he bets 115. If he bets 115 on the river in my exampe his range should weighted much more heavily towards AA/KK/AK/QJs/TT/other sets then AQ/AJ/KT/ragged 2-pair/bluffs.
|
|
#33
07-19-2007, 02:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ATs vs. TAG
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] To all saying call, call, call. Turn and river bricks. Villain bets 115 in 130, you call? Personally I call ~95 or less. Calling a big bet on the river vs an unknown tag is bad imo. He's almost never bluffing 3 streets in a row on this board and I doubt he's valuebetting this big with a worse hand. Keep in mind villain raised from UTG, there's not a ton of possible lower Ax two pair combos. [/ QUOTE ] Nick I see what you're saying, but you also have to consider what he thinks we may have ... if we flat call flop, our hand could be AT, but it also looks like AJ/AQ/KQ/KJ hoping to hit a 4 outer ... [/ QUOTE ] So you think he'll bet 115 as a bluff? I strongly disagree. He will not vb 115 with AQ hoping for a call from AJ. He'll probably bet 75-90 with AQ if he decides to bet, hoping to get calls from Ax. That's why I'm calling a 90ish or less bet but I fold if he bets 115. If he bets 115 on the river in my exampe his range should weighted much more heavily towards AA/KK/AK/QJs/TT/other sets then AQ/AJ/KT/ragged 2-pair/bluffs. [/ QUOTE ] No need to put words into my mouth ... we're still in the abstract here so lets wait and see how the hand plays out ...
|
|
#34
07-19-2007, 02:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ATs vs. TAG
I think Hero needs to raise the flop here. If this TAG villain comes over the top for a 3-bet, I think Hero has to dump it.
What hands are we beating here that TAG would raise UTG with? QQ, JJ, AQ, 99 and lower. No need to lose our stack with top and bottom pair. Unfortunate flop really. My question: Why are you calling the TAG UTG raiser with ATs. This is a situation I personally try to avoid because it is so tough to play after the flop. If we hit a monster hand, a straight or a flush, we probably don't get paid off by the TAG. Thoughts?
|
|
#35
07-19-2007, 02:21 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ATs vs. TAG
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] To all saying call, call, call. Turn and river bricks. Villain bets 115 in 130, you call? Personally I call ~95 or less. Calling a big bet on the river vs an unknown tag is bad imo. He's almost never bluffing 3 streets in a row on this board and I doubt he's valuebetting this big with a worse hand. Keep in mind villain raised from UTG, there's not a ton of possible lower Ax two pair combos. [/ QUOTE ] Nick I see what you're saying, but you also have to consider what he thinks we may have ... if we flat call flop, our hand could be AT, but it also looks like AJ/AQ/KQ/KJ hoping to hit a 4 outer ... [/ QUOTE ] So you think he'll bet 115 as a bluff? I strongly disagree. He will not vb 115 with AQ hoping for a call from AJ. He'll probably bet 75-90 with AQ if he decides to bet, hoping to get calls from Ax. That's why I'm calling a 90ish or less bet but I fold if he bets 115. If he bets 115 on the river in my exampe his range should weighted much more heavily towards AA/KK/AK/QJs/TT/other sets then AQ/AJ/KT/ragged 2-pair/bluffs. [/ QUOTE ] No need to put words into my mouth ... we're still in the abstract here so lets wait and see how the hand plays out ... [/ QUOTE ] Wow, that's not really interesting. I was creating a scenario in which I think a fold is correct and it seems like many disagree. You responded saying you think he might think we have a gut-shot or TPGK and that's why we sould call a 115 bet in a 130 pot on the river. There's no logic behind that reasoning unless you, a) thinks he'll 3-barrel bluff or b) valuebet big with AQ. I said both are unlikely given our read and the board. An again, I'm calling down if he bet reasonable ammounts.
|
|
#37
07-19-2007, 02:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ATs vs. TAG
[ QUOTE ]
I think Hero needs to raise the flop here. If this TAG villain comes over the top for a 3-bet, I think Hero has to dump it. What hands are we beating here that TAG would raise UTG with? QQ, JJ, AQ, 99 and lower. No need to lose our stack with top and bottom pair. Unfortunate flop really. My question: Why are you calling the TAG UTG raiser with ATs. This is a situation I personally try to avoid because it is so tough to play after the flop. If we hit a monster hand, a straight or a flush, we probably don't get paid off by the TAG. Thoughts? [/ QUOTE ] This post blows my mind.
|
|
#38
07-19-2007, 02:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ATs vs. TAG
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] To all saying call, call, call. Turn and river bricks. Villain bets 115 in 130, you call? Personally I call ~95 or less. Calling a big bet on the river vs an unknown tag is bad imo. He's almost never bluffing 3 streets in a row on this board and I doubt he's valuebetting this big with a worse hand. Keep in mind villain raised from UTG, there's not a ton of possible lower Ax two pair combos. [/ QUOTE ] Nick I see what you're saying, but you also have to consider what he thinks we may have ... if we flat call flop, our hand could be AT, but it also looks like AJ/AQ/KQ/KJ hoping to hit a 4 outer ... [/ QUOTE ] So you think he'll bet 115 as a bluff? I strongly disagree. He will not vb 115 with AQ hoping for a call from AJ. He'll probably bet 75-90 with AQ if he decides to bet, hoping to get calls from Ax. That's why I'm calling a 90ish or less bet but I fold if he bets 115. If he bets 115 on the river in my exampe his range should weighted much more heavily towards AA/KK/AK/QJs/TT/other sets then AQ/AJ/KT/ragged 2-pair/bluffs. [/ QUOTE ] No need to put words into my mouth ... we're still in the abstract here so lets wait and see how the hand plays out ... [/ QUOTE ] Wow, that's not really interesting. I was creating a scenario in which I think a fold is correct and it seems like many disagree. You responded saying you think he might think we have a gut-shot or TPGK and that's why we sould call a 115 bet in a 130 pot on the river. There's no logic behind that reasoning unless you, a) thinks he'll 3-barrel bluff or b) valuebet big with AQ. I said both are unlikely given our read and the board. An again, I'm calling down if he bet reasonable ammounts. [/ QUOTE ] Simmer down a little bit ... in principal we're in agreement, I'm not attacking your reasoning ... my call / call / call line wasn't in direct response to your made up scenario about a ~PSB on the river ... Wait for Orange to post further streets and then you can bloviate about your river action
|
|
#39
07-19-2007, 02:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ATs vs. TAG
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] To all saying call, call, call. Turn and river bricks. Villain bets 115 in 130, you call? Personally I call ~95 or less. Calling a big bet on the river vs an unknown tag is bad imo. He's almost never bluffing 3 streets in a row on this board and I doubt he's valuebetting this big with a worse hand. Keep in mind villain raised from UTG, there's not a ton of possible lower Ax two pair combos. [/ QUOTE ] Nick I see what you're saying, but you also have to consider what he thinks we may have ... if we flat call flop, our hand could be AT, but it also looks like AJ/AQ/KQ/KJ hoping to hit a 4 outer ... [/ QUOTE ] So you think he'll bet 115 as a bluff? I strongly disagree. He will not vb 115 with AQ hoping for a call from AJ. He'll probably bet 75-90 with AQ if he decides to bet, hoping to get calls from Ax. That's why I'm calling a 90ish or less bet but I fold if he bets 115. If he bets 115 on the river in my exampe his range should weighted much more heavily towards AA/KK/AK/QJs/TT/other sets then AQ/AJ/KT/ragged 2-pair/bluffs. [/ QUOTE ] No need to put words into my mouth ... we're still in the abstract here so lets wait and see how the hand plays out ... [/ QUOTE ] Wow, that's not really interesting. I was creating a scenario in which I think a fold is correct and it seems like many disagree. You responded saying you think he might think we have a gut-shot or TPGK and that's why we sould call a 115 bet in a 130 pot on the river. There's no logic behind that reasoning unless you, a) thinks he'll 3-barrel bluff or b) valuebet big with AQ. I said both are unlikely given our read and the board. An again, I'm calling down if he bet reasonable ammounts. [/ QUOTE ] Simmer down a little bit ... in principal we're in agreement, I'm not attacking your reasoning ... my call / call / call line wasn't in direct response to your made up scenario about a ~PSB on the river ... Wait for Orange to post further streets and then you can bloviate about your river action [/ QUOTE ] Ok, because you addressed me and qouted what I had wrote. I don't really like it when people answering my posts using flawed logic, then when I do my best to try to understand your thinking you answer with a one-liner saying we need to be result oriented and not discuss any other possible outcome of the hand.
|
|
#40
07-19-2007, 02:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: ATs vs. TAG
Min raise!
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
