|
|
#51
09-15-2006, 12:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Which Bluff(s) Worked?
[ QUOTE ]
i cant ever have a set or two pair or maybe AK here? [/ QUOTE ] these hands are definitely possible, even something with a 4 is in your range. i just don't think these hands are likely the way you played it. this looks like a hand that either flopped big (aa, jj, aj, maybe 33) or some weakish hand that got lucky and picked up something on the later streets. your utg raising range while wide, is not so wide that you are likely to have connected with a pretty uncoordinated board in a way that warrants three shells. at the same time, your opponent is also likely to have not connected strongly with this board. the litmus test, in my opinion, is whether you think you can move him off of something like an ace with an unpaired kicker. against a strong thinking opponent who could dissect the hand, i don't think this is likely, especially since he knows he only has to be right about one time in three. i will grant, though, that it is in the realm of possibility that you could push him off an ace. 
|
|
#53
09-15-2006, 01:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Which Bluff(s) Worked?
[ QUOTE ]
if #3 worked i'll eat my hat. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] fsu, you took me off the winner in hand #3! I actually sniffed something funny and was so very close to RERAISING you on the flop when it got back to me - especially since OP took so much time to call. Oops did not mean to give it away. [/ QUOTE ] Baseball hat? Panama hat? Sombrero? -Diplomat
|
|
#55
09-15-2006, 01:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Which Bluff(s) Worked?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] if #3 worked i'll eat my hat. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] fsu, you took me off the winner in hand #3! I actually sniffed something funny and was so very close to RERAISING you on the flop when it got back to me - especially since OP took so much time to call. Oops did not mean to give it away. [/ QUOTE ] Baseball hat? Panama hat? Sombrero? -Diplomat [/ QUOTE ] we all obv know samo folded in hand #3 on the flop, but that doesnt nec. prove that it did or didnt work.
|
|
#58
09-15-2006, 03:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Which Bluff(s) Worked?
[ QUOTE ]
No, because AQ isn't valuebetting like this on river, thus AQ = AT. AK is definitely different of course, given that hero will valuebet AK here like this most likely. [/ QUOTE ] Sorry, but I don't think your reasoning is sound here. So, you are saying that hero never bets AQ on the river and villain knows that? Ok, then AQ is indeed excactly the same as AT. However, if this is written in stone and both players know it, then hero knows that villain will fold AQ as well as AT, so there is absolutely no reason for hero to value bet AK either. Do you see where this reasoning is heading? You cannot say that AQ is exactly AT here. The difference is not very big though, so much is true.
|
|
#59
09-15-2006, 04:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Which Bluff(s) Worked?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] if #3 worked i'll eat my hat. [/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] fsu, you took me off the winner in hand #3! I actually sniffed something funny and was so very close to RERAISING you on the flop when it got back to me - especially since OP took so much time to call. Oops did not mean to give it away. [/ QUOTE ] Baseball hat? Panama hat? Sombrero? -Diplomat [/ QUOTE ] we all obv know samo folded in hand #3 on the flop, but that doesnt nec. prove that it did or didnt work. [/ QUOTE ] Oh c'mon. Wouldn't you rather see some hat-eating? -Diplomat
|
|
#60
09-15-2006, 04:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Which Bluff(s) Worked?
DrGonzo, I'm saying AQ never does bet LIKE THIS on river. You are free to believe whatever you want, but that is the truth. Both hands are, most of the time, going to check behind on the turn, but the times they are not, AQ is DEFINITELY not betting like this, while AK definitely can.
[ QUOTE ] However, if this is written in stone and both players know it, then hero knows that villain will fold AQ as well as AT, so there is absolutely no reason for hero to value bet AK either [/ QUOTE ] You are DEAD ON WRONG about there is no point in hero betting AK because of AQ/AT being the same; you just don't seem to get that AK is a REAL possibility for villain, and because of this betting AQ will end up with you getting called by AK who is thinking he's beating a bluff but instead beats our "valuebet" from AQ. If hero bets AK in the same scenario, he's not taking the risk of making a "valuebet" only to end up getting called by villains AK who was calling because he thought hero was bluffing. You are of course also wrong in the sense that your statement is also relying on the fact that villain will never try to catch a bluff with AT/AQ, and if that would be true then 3-barreling here would be the best move in history every single time. Come on, seriously, think before you post. Before you claim that my reasoning is unsound, make sure you actually know what you are talking about, I hate when people critisize what I'm writing when they are just not getting it.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
