|
|
#1
01-17-2007, 06:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
80/160 2-7 hand
6 handed
Laggy player who spews with his draws raises utg, I call in sb with 247xx, Jewfro calls in bb. We all draw 2. I catch 24794. Checks around. I draw 1 to the 2479 knowing with very high certainty that both will draw 2. Both draw 2. I catch 24789. I bet out Fro folds, Wiru raises. I call and pat. Everything after unimportant. 
|
|
#2
01-17-2007, 07:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 80/160 2-7 hand
I'd reraise predraw because I don't want Jewfro playing especially with position on me. I think I would have drawn two again but its close and your choice has merit. After that I think you played it fine but you pretty much have to pay off on the end with your hand face up like that.
-DeathDonkey
|
|
#3
01-17-2007, 03:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 80/160 2-7 hand
[ QUOTE ]
I'd reraise predraw because I don't want Jewfro playing especially with position on me. I think I would have drawn two again but its close and your choice has merit. After that I think you played it fine but you pretty much have to pay off on the end with your hand face up like that. -DeathDonkey [/ QUOTE ] Which is more dangerous, JewFro's position or the spewy UTG? I chose Enon's option of calling in the small blind, it is safer in the long run because often with a spewy player like that there are not many opportunities to force a fold with a vulnerable hand, and we inflate the pot by allowing Jewfro in. I think its marginally the better decision, but Donkey's option is far from being wrong. On third street the hand is too rough and the pot is too small - I think I can find a fold to the raise but it makes me feel really spineless and yucky. TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
|
|
#4
01-17-2007, 05:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 80/160 2-7 hand
Folding to the raise seems way wrong to me. The spewy guy is probably decent enough to know that we would bet here regardless of what we caught so he can raise with any pat hand and some snows because spewy guys love to do this and have their jack hold up.
-DeathDonkey
|
|
#5
01-17-2007, 06:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 80/160 2-7 hand
[ QUOTE ]
Folding to the raise seems way wrong to me. The spewy guy is probably decent enough to know that we would bet here regardless of what we caught so he can raise with any pat hand and some snows because spewy guys love to do this and have their jack hold up. -DeathDonkey [/ QUOTE ] Yep. Folding is completely out of the question versus this guy. He would probably raise any 7 draw, as well as any T, J or snow as Donkey said. Mainly interested in keeping the 97 draw with 2 left, was a weird spot for me. With the pot relatively small, I figured Jewfro would be folding a lot of the time with one draw left. Maybe drawing 2 again is the play. I really have no idea.
|
|
#6
01-18-2007, 02:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 80/160 2-7 hand
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Folding to the raise seems way wrong to me. The spewy guy is probably decent enough to know that we would bet here regardless of what we caught so he can raise with any pat hand and some snows because spewy guys love to do this and have their jack hold up. -DeathDonkey [/ QUOTE ] Yep. Folding is completely out of the question versus this guy. He would probably raise any 7 draw, as well as any T, J or snow as Donkey said. Mainly interested in keeping the 97 draw with 2 left, was a weird spot for me. With the pot relatively small, I figured Jewfro would be folding a lot of the time with one draw left. Maybe drawing 2 again is the play. I really have no idea. [/ QUOTE ] But if you are not going to stay pat and decide to draw two as DD discussed, I'd rather muck the hand because the pot is too small, your not getting the right odds to draw two here. If its a choice is limited to drawing one card, two cards, or staying pat I am pat every time - but if the choice is between drawing two cards, one card or mucking then mucking is the statistically correct action. Remember your only getting 6:1, and at best I think you have 1/2 bet implied odds on the river. TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
|
|
#7
01-18-2007, 02:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 80/160 2-7 hand
[ QUOTE ]
But if you are not going to stay pat and decide to draw two as DD discussed, I'd rather muck the hand because the pot is too small, your not getting the right odds to draw two here. [/ QUOTE ] DD's talking about drawing two on second. Naturally you're never breaking this hand on third.
|
|
#8
01-18-2007, 02:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 80/160 2-7 hand
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] But if you are not going to stay pat and decide to draw two as DD discussed, I'd rather muck the hand because the pot is too small, your not getting the right odds to draw two here. [/ QUOTE ] DD's talking about drawing two on second. Naturally you're never breaking this hand on third. [/ QUOTE ] I just re-read his post, I dont see DD dropping a 9 going into the second draw - as read it still seems as if he is talking about calling and drawing two after the villain's raise. TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
|
|
#9
01-18-2007, 05:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 80/160 2-7 hand
I meant dropping the nine going into the second draw. I would always be pat vs described villain with the 987 here and would usually pay off.
-DeathDonkey
|
|
#10
01-18-2007, 11:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 80/160 2-7 hand
[ QUOTE ]
I meant dropping the nine going into the second draw. I would always be pat vs described villain with the 987 here and would usually pay off. -DeathDonkey [/ QUOTE ] lol, then we all are saying the same thing. TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
