|
|
#31
09-27-2007, 01:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: too thin? 5/10
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] wow i'm really surprised people think this is a bluff, i think it's a value bet and perfectly fine [/ QUOTE ] what hand range do you expect this type of player to call with then? (not saying this is a bad line, just curious what you think his range is) [/ QUOTE ] a ten or two nines or two eights 
|
|
#32
09-27-2007, 01:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: too thin? 5/10
And the difference between the way we view this hand is that you think he has those hands often and will call, and I think he has clubs/air often enough where he will bluff it. Atleast they both can't be far off in relation to them showing/getting value.
|
|
#34
09-27-2007, 01:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: too thin? 5/10
i dont think he'll ever be calling w/88-99
theres really only two viable tens that your vbing agaisnt, qt and at, bc you have 2 jacks its less likely for him to have jt etc i just dont see how this is good
|
|
#36
09-27-2007, 02:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: too thin? 5/10
[ QUOTE ]
c/c is the worst usually, shove or check/fold [/ QUOTE ] no, people bluff. its like c/c>shove>c/f.
|
|
#37
09-27-2007, 02:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: too thin? 5/10
C/C is bad here against this particular villain I think. He plays his draws really fast in my experience, and his hand looks a lot more like a T or 88/99 to me, and I certainly think he's capable of calling with any those hands in this spot. I think he checks behind on the river here almost always when we check here FWIW, and I think we are almost always good here, unless he has QQ, which is the only hand I'd worry about. I like the way you played this and shove is waywaywayway better than c/cing here vs this guy.
|
|
#38
09-27-2007, 02:38 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: too thin? 5/10
Lol this is obviously a value bet, and it's way better than c/c against most players.
I'd bet more on the turn though, but that's because I wouldn't make a 1/2 psb here with really any hand.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
