Razz: Huge pot

[SGspecial]

I see. If your reads are indicative of your experience at HORSE tables then by all means keep playing them religiously and you should be a big winner vs. villains who raise with a split pair of K's in razz.

[Raxxmataxx]

[ QUOTE ]
I see. If your reads are indicative of your experience at HORSE tables then by all means keep playing them religiously and you should be a big winner vs. villains who raise with a split pair of K's in razz.

[/ QUOTE ]Reads haven't much to do with it, I just explained why your proposed hand range was too tight.

It has much more to do with logic than observation. And the logic is that when you're dealing with someone who has shown himself to commit one obvious, super big mistake the probability of him commiting other similiarly large mistakes shoot up dramatically. It's not reasonable to assume that the demonstrated mistake is the absolute worst one he'll commit.

You're essentially saying "We know they have to at least play wwK and wwT, but surely they can't be worse." whereas I'm saying "we know they play at least wwK and wwT and that dramatically raises the probability they play even worse hands".

It's the same reasoning in hold'em. If you see someone playing T7o early it doesn't mean he'll go all the way to 72o, but it makes very much more likely than if you hadn't seen him play T7 at all.

And you still haven't addressed 44 behind us. Which on further reflection looks way more important than getting the hand ranges right.

Just looking at it quickly it seems pretty clear that getting rid of something like 8544 gains us significant equity even with your proposed range. And if you don't think that hands like that will be more inclined to fold due to a 3-bet, then we have an argument for valuebetting even with assumed smooth draws for K6 and T8.

If we we're talking about capping, you'd have much more of an argument for refraining from betting. I'd still do it, but whatever expectation that bet would have, it would be lower than 3-betting in this spot.