hand vs durrrr, top pair deep HU

[KRANTZ]

[ QUOTE ]
fwiw my earlier post (which didnt get any thoughts [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]) was to try and make you think up a river range, and then realize that you HAVE to call QJ, unless im playing really bad vs your range, or i have some crazy obvious meta-game tell.

[/ QUOTE ]

how frequently would you be following through with something like KJ or spades or complete air here given all the calls i had been making in the big pots, though?

[Subfallen]

Are the online games really so bad now that a HSNL'er needs to play durrrr HU?

[TilTandWiN]

What do you think about raising on the flop?

It seems you have been (successfully) slow playing him a lot but with a marginal hand would it not be best to find out where you stand? (However I totally understand the view that you felt your hand was best (as he will make that flop bet with ATC) and wanted to extract value). It just seems that betting the flop would mean that such an awkward river situation could be avoided.

[Eagles]

Krantz,
If you think Durrr made a bad value shove with KQ than why aren't you calling worse than QJ. If you don't think he'd shove KQ for value QJ= 88.

edit: I know he could bluff shove Tx or 99/88 but that's a very small part of his range.

[VanVeen]

in kalur's defense, most players playing above a certain level are employing non-stationary mixed strategies, either intentionally or through intuition alone. their action frequencies with the same hand on the same board facing the same action are not constant, and there is literally no way for a hand reader to ascertain their range distribution or their action distribution at any given time. in such conditions the two-way bet may be and often is employed as a way of 'hedging' against the distribution of potential ranges and strategies your opponent may be employing. quite literally, you use it when you don't really know what your opponent has or what he'll do but you know certain things are (almost) certainly not true (see kalur's criteria). there's no shame in that. situations vs. unpredictable opponents are often too close to call.

im really surprised jman would say he hates two-way bets, especially since one of the secondary advantages is the smoothing out of your own range distribution, making hand strength evaluation far more difficult for your opponent when faced with your aggression.

[fslexcduck]

[ QUOTE ]
in kalur's defense, most players playing above a certain level are employing non-stationary mixed strategies, either intentionally or through intuition alone. their action frequencies with the same hand on the same board facing the same action are not constant, and there is literally no way for a hand reader to ascertain their range distribution or their action distribution at any given time. in such conditions the two-way bet may be and often is employed as a way of 'hedging' against the distribution of potential ranges and strategies your opponent may be employing. quite literally, you use it when you don't really know what your opponent has or what he'll do but you know certain things are (almost) certainly not true (see kalur's criteria). there's no shame in that. situations vs. unpredictable opponents are often too close to call.

im really surprised jman would say he hates two-way bets, especially since one of the secondary advantages is the smoothing out of your own range distribution, making hand strength evaluation far more difficult for your opponent when faced with your aggression.

[/ QUOTE ]

translation for us morons out there:

when confused, bet! then you're harder to play against, if nothing else.

[VanVeen]

haha, basically!

bet size should also be proportional to your level of confusion. if nothing else, the bigger you bet the more impressed other people will be.

[SuperJez]

Results?

[ArmenH]

Krantz, you're calling 3bets with 106 and QJ? The AQs and the Q9s are justifiable but the other 2. I dunno. I don't ever see a really great HU player ever getting into this predicament with QJ.