|
|
#11
10-23-2007, 08:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Two hands of interest
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] First hand is fine. [/ QUOTE ] really? what happened to baluga theorem? the only real draw is QJ, and it would be sort of crazy to lead out with QJ after you called flop raise, he shouldn't expect you to fold AK. why would he c/r KJ on this flop? AF of 2,5 is not THAT high. I'd say that hand one is a clear fold, but you're definitely better than I, so now i dono. [/ QUOTE ] a. This isn't Baluga b. People do bluff/semibluff and generally don't like checking the turn after check raising the flop. His range of hands that beat us here is just so narrow. He may flat 33 and possibly kt pre but that is about it. TT probably 3 bets, kk 3 bets. 
|
|
#12
10-23-2007, 09:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Two hands of interest
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] First hand is fine. [/ QUOTE ] really? what happened to baluga theorem? the only real draw is QJ, and it would be sort of crazy to lead out with QJ after you called flop raise, he shouldn't expect you to fold AK. why would he c/r KJ on this flop? AF of 2,5 is not THAT high. I'd say that hand one is a clear fold, but you're definitely better than I, so now i dono. [/ QUOTE ] IMO: a set is unlikely in hand one given that KK and TT would generally RR pf, and the only plausible 2Pair hand seems to be KT. This, along with a general tendency for players to overvalue their holdings against a button raiser, leans villain's range to worse 1Pair hands and bluffs/semibluffs. So hand 1 is a shove.
|
|
#13
10-23-2007, 09:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Two hands of interest
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] First hand is fine. [/ QUOTE ] really? what happened to baluga theorem? the only real draw is QJ, and it would be sort of crazy to lead out with QJ after you called flop raise, he shouldn't expect you to fold AK. why would he c/r KJ on this flop? AF of 2,5 is not THAT high. I'd say that hand one is a clear fold, but you're definitely better than I, so now i dono. [/ QUOTE ] IMO: a set is unlikely in hand one given that KK and TT would generally RR pf, and the only plausible 2Pair hand seems to be KT. This, along with a general tendency for players to overvalue their holdings against a button raiser, leans villain's range to worse 1Pair hands and bluffs/semibluffs. So hand 1 is a shove. [/ QUOTE ] QFT both are totally standard. I think shoving turn in hand 2 is kinda bad unless you got history with the guy. now you can call a bet on this river. And betting river would be bad too i think since he will CR turn most of the time to semibluff with air or with a hand that beats you.
|
|
#14
10-23-2007, 09:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Two hands of interest
Vs the villain you described hand 1 is bad. You should prob fold the turn on this board
hand 2 is ok. your line leading up to river is pretty strong for you to want action from 1 pair on the river.
|
|
#15
10-23-2007, 09:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Two hands of interest
hand 1: i think its player dependant, against a decent 19/16 reg only 33 beats u. A KT prob wouldnt call from sb and i cant see a KT c/r that flop. TT/KK would 3b. I think this is weak most of the times, standard flop c/r following up on the turn. then again, i dont know his postflop play and your history.
hand 2 looks fine, his close to pot cb, turn c/r and river ch arent a flush most of the time, some ace.
|
|
#17
10-23-2007, 10:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Two hands of interest
I think he has an AX[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], a bluff, or he has you beat
|
|
#20
10-24-2007, 12:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Two hands of interest
I'll just post my thoughts I guess.
I thought both the hands were interesting because they showed some of the more subtle advantages of playing aggressively. In hand 1, I think that this type of player rarely check/raise bluffs, and then fires the turn with air even less often. Since I run very loose stats (and my vpip is well over 30 at this point), he probably assumes I'm a complete idiot and will never lay down anything. So he probably has air close to never. Furthermore, I do not think he fires the turn with QJ very often. His betting puts me in a spot where it's natural for me to shove the hands I want to get all in with. So basically his range is hands he's playing for value, and I don't think I'm doing well vs that range with AK. I think he has KT, TT, or 33 just about every time here. What's interesting here is how much of my range I'm going to fold to his c/r, lead. I play 33/28, and I'm on the button, so my range is hugely wide. In order for him to fully take advantage of my ridiculously wide range, he should start by c/r bluffing all day. After it becomes clear to me that he is an aggressive player, he should start to c/r for value with a much wider range. By playing like a nit, villain not only misses a bajillion pots that he could easily pick up by playing more aggressively, but he actually kills his own action when I do have a big made hand. Try doing some math: I raise something like 50% of hands OTB. Figure out how much of that range feels comfortable on a KT3r flop. In hand 2, I think analyzing the turn is really interesting. The turn brings a flush, and gives me a super-disguised two pair. What do you do? I think a check behind for pot control on the turn is a viable option. Villain is an aggressive TAG, and will check/raise when he hit his flush. And he certainly leads out with a flush draw on the flop. But I think giving him a free river card with a hand that is both vulnerable and far ahead of his range is missing too much value. I don't think the extra hands he calls with on the river, or the times he pushes us off our hand with air when we bet are enough to dissuade me from betting. He check/raises. He certainly can have complete air. He certainly can have the flush. If that's all that's in his range, we should CALL, and probably fold to a river shove, since he's either drawing dead or we're drawing to 4 outs. However, villain felt that he could be semibluffing there. But what can he be semibluffing with? AX[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] would surely bet out on the turn. By check/raising a pair of aces, villain would be folding out my worse hands and getting calls from my better ones. And if he has something like TT[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] I think he'll be trying to get to showdown and not turning his hand into a semibluff. The only semibluffs left are hands like K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]Qx, and I believe that these hands are possible but there are not a lot of combinations of them, as he would probably need the K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] or at least the Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] to semibluff. So I just called, and checked behind on the river (under the assumption he had air/flush). Villain had JTo (no [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]), and said that he check/raised the turn because he thought I had air there so often. I agreed, saying that it's safe to assume I would rep the flush with every weak hand in my range, and probably only bet out the made flush for value. This train of thought led me to the conclusion that by not betting the turn with non-flush made hands, I become too susceptible to check-raises (counter-intuitive, eh?). Therefore, checking behind the turn for pot control is NOT a viable option, even though it makes the hand easier to play, and seems reasonably +EV. I definitely believe that conclusion is up for debate, and that it might not be the same for someone with a different overall game plan. Ya dig?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
