Insane HH from Niagara 10k involving THE Vanessa Rousso (and Shaniac)

[dumbndumb]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Shane,

I wasn't implying it was disastrous. I was acknowledging that I think its a bleed. Why can't he limp here?

[/ QUOTE ]

He can fold, too, and I'm sure he does most times, but I reckon raising is superior to limping for "metagame" or something. Based on the length of time that he tanked it to Vanessa's raise, I figured he had an overpair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Shane,

I was originally going to say in previous post that I realize the argument for raising pre is for metagame purposes, disguising hand, blah, blah, blah. I was going to comment that just because he limped so deep doesn't mean that you know what he has. However, I guess this is the kind of situation in which raising pre can be an asset b/c he can be mistaken for an overpair.

Now I am wondering if this situation comes up often enough for raising to still be profitable. I suppose given implied odds (of course, I don't know the outcome of hand) and metagame maybe it could be +EV, but you have to factor in the amount of times you wiff and amount of times you get rerasied off a hand that you could have limped and called a raise behind if pot odds warrant.

You know what, maybe this is just too much discussion about such a trivial decision, but lately I find myself bleeding early b/c of the rationale you mentioned.

[Ansky]

[ QUOTE ]
implied odds

[/ QUOTE ]


no!!!! there is no reason to think you have implied odds this deep! You are all so used to thinking of implied odds in terms of flopping sets vs obv overpairs, or whatever, NOT w/ 7 high flushes or 2nd nut straghts, or trips w/ 7 or 4 kickers 400bb deep into several players.

[MLG]

its just so rediculous that people cant see why this is bad in the same thread where we are in a spot with a nonautomatic decision and the 2nd nuts.