|
|
|
|
#3
11-28-2007, 08:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Weird hand from 6k tourney in Sweden
Forgive the tone of my post, I'm trying to learn and generate discussion at the same time. I've found the best way to do that is to take contrarian positions and talk about the reasons for each side.
So you guys are saying if we raise, having to fold to a 3-bet would be really bad, therefore call? I'm not looking to get it all in here on this flop, but lets discuss our plan for the hand. Let's assume we do raise the flop to 3500... then villain can call, raise, or fold. We're 16k behind and not committed yet. I think if he does reraise, we should fold. Even though we don't have a read yet, I think that for the betting we've seen we can safely assume we're behind. I think the minimum we could put him on would be KhJh, KhTh, 2p or better. If Villain calls, then we have position for the next street, more fold equity, and we can re-evaluate. What I believe you guys are greatly underestimating is that I think Villain gives up on the flop most of the time. If we just call the flop, true, we're playing in a smaller pot... but as OP said, a lot of the deck represents scary bluffing cards, and Villain has the lead and a propensity to apply pressure. We don't know if he's just double barrelling, or if he's actually semi-bluffing something, or tying us into a bigger pot when we're already behind. If led into on a hypothetical turn, do we raise safe cards? Do we fold to PSB's on bad cards? We pick up a NFD if the hearts hit. If checked to, are we betting? Are we folding to turn check/raises? I think by just calling the flop, it makes the turn decisions much more complicated for us. I guess the whole point of what I'm trying to say is that I think raising the flop... a) Gives us more information b) Protects our hand from 1 pair/weak draws Villain might have led out on the flop c) Lets us know quicker and cheaper when we're behind d) Makes for easier decisions on later streets. 
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
