Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > PL/NL Texas Hold'em > Full Ring
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 10-18-2007, 08:50 PM
CalledDownLight CalledDownLight is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: burning money in non-ring games
Posts: 4,541
Default Re: 400: Probably standard...

[ QUOTE ]
if a crai is plus ev here, then betcalling ergo must be superior. (i.e. i highly doubt he just stabs with air here like ever)

[/ QUOTE ]

but couldn't he be folding to a second barrel, but betting when checked to? I mean I think he could still have some pocket pairs or 9x here that might have floated, but don't want to call a to barrel. Is this off base?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-18-2007, 09:03 PM
Renton Renton is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 1,717
Default Re: 400: Probably standard...

that would seem like a fairly rare occurrence i think, but yea you may be right
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-18-2007, 09:37 PM
ActionStan ActionStan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 557
Default Re: 400: Probably standard...

So, one vote for full of crap. I can accept that. I often am.

[ QUOTE ]

(i.e. i highly doubt he just stabs with air here like ever)


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not hinging my decision on this, but I think this is a little strong. This is a scary board. Surely someone represents a hand when checked to more than 0% of the time.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-18-2007, 09:42 PM
ActionStan ActionStan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 557
Default Re: 400: Probably standard...

I'm a little unclear why you think bet/call is superior? Could you explain? Gives him the chance to shove some things he may fold?

Thanks.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-18-2007, 11:37 PM
Renton Renton is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 1,717
Default Re: 400: Probably standard...

because we have a good hand and theres value in a bet +++++++ we'll be pot committed once we bet so we must then call a shove.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-19-2007, 08:09 AM
ActionStan ActionStan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 557
Default Re: 400: Probably standard...

Thanks Renton. I appreciate your note and your patience as I work through this problem.

I see the part about marrying ourselves to the pot. Do you not think we induce a bluff from other hands like A9, TT, T9, T8 to outweight that? It seems that some of those hands might fire if we check, but might balk at calling off their last 100 without a heart in their hand, perhaps incorrectly. No? It strikes me that checking is going to induce bets from several hands we beat while betting will only get calls from 1 hand we beat. It might get a shove from a few others. But, those that would shove, with a couple of exceptions, are also going to be priced into a call were we to shove.

When I first read this, I didn't notice that the button was in the hand with us. That does make me tighten up the CO's range and make me think that we're much closer to break even than was my original estimate.

If it was just us and the button (still capped at 260), though, I think that the check/shove line is a very good one. No? I think we're going to induce a bluff out of the button a reasonably high percentage of the time. That 8 is such a good scare card to bet. I think very good players (much better than me) are talking about the laydown being standard. That would imply to me that betting that card, regardless of your holdings, is also standard. Given that we have a good hand with redraws, we would have very solid equity here.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.