425 bb deep with AA

[thatpfunk]

"i suppose c/c isn't bad if you expect him to bluff a missed flush draw."

but people dont do this in big, deep pots because, as you may have noticed, all the tagfish wanna c/c.

[snowbank]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you should also consider 1/2 pot / call.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] against a guy i don't have history against there's no way I beat anything that raises a bet on the river

[/ QUOTE ]


I strongly disagree with this. Even against unknown if I were to lead for 1/2 pot I would def be calling a 3x/4x raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

with the intention of being ahead of what??? that's giving money away.

[easycall]

[ QUOTE ]
without reads anything besides betting is pretty awful, imo. this is why you like playing [censored] players deep.

he is checking behind a lot hands. you get to value bet him to death. he doesn't bluff, ever, if you bet. he rarely bluffs if you check. he rarely bets for value with a hand you beat if you check.

players at this level suck at playing deep, big pots so you should take advantage of this by extracting max value in these situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

meh, i disagree, but i am starting to think my thinking may be more from HU experience (as far as letting guys bluff the river, and I think i'm pretty decent at getting value out of ppl)

i think there are a lot of ways to play the riv, but i agree with a lot of what you're saying and i mean, i agree that if you bet and he raises it's almost never a bluff...so in that sense, bet and hope he calls with tpgk..as opposed to check and hope he bluffs a missed draw...anyway, im to chipotle.

[KeanuReaver]

[ QUOTE ]
"i suppose c/c isn't bad if you expect him to bluff a missed flush draw."

but people dont do this in big, deep pots because, as you may have noticed, all the tagfish wanna c/c.

[/ QUOTE ]

i didn't think it was very reasonable either, but it's the only way i can possibly rationalize a c/c in this situation.

[easycall]

[ QUOTE ]
"i suppose c/c isn't bad if you expect him to bluff a missed flush draw."

but people dont do this in big, deep pots because, as you may have noticed, all the tagfish wanna c/c.

[/ QUOTE ]

wtf, bluffing in my experience is more prevalent in deep pots cause stacks are deeper in relation...i mean, so much of this case hand is player dependent...its still hard to put the "proper" play in a vacuum like i started to do earlier, and now you seem to be.

i wish i were a tagfish though. maybe i wouldn't spew so much? or perhaps that is the conundrumdudm [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[jj12]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you should also consider 1/2 pot / call.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] against a guy i don't have history against there's no way I beat anything that raises a bet on the river

[/ QUOTE ]


I strongly disagree with this. Even against unknown if I were to lead for 1/2 pot I would def be calling a 3x/4x raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

with the intention of being ahead of what??? that's giving money away.

[/ QUOTE ]

a fd or retarded bluff. Much bigger part of his 1/2 pot raising range than set or T9.

[snowbank]

[ QUOTE ]
if bet/fold is your actual line you'd think you'd take in this spot (granted he provided us with 0 reads) this is a freaking easy check on the riv, imo.

you are bet folding to T9 here and bluffs...i'd rather check and hope to pick off a bluff or KQ/AQ type hand from him here.

[/ QUOTE ]

what bluff type hands do you think he has here by the river?

[jfish]

thread shouldve ended at 410/fold.

[MilkMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
History?

[/ QUOTE ]

no, I'll always post if there's any history.

[/ QUOTE ]

How the f do you both have 400 bb at table w/o any history or reads?

[/ QUOTE ]

[d2themfi]

yeah I mean i think the decision whether to bet or check is so player dependent, but with no reads(which seems weird this deep) I suppose betting like 2/3 pot is about right.