|
|
#32
11-26-2007, 04:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 200NL - Yell at me
Meh.
Question: If you had the option to check it down the whole way after seeing this flop (villain agrees to this), would you take it? Also, what would you do on this river with TT-QQ? 
|
|
#34
11-26-2007, 05:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 200NL - Yell at me
[ QUOTE ]
Will, you are probably gonna have to explain the logic of that 3bet to me [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]. I think a call is soooo much better because his 3bet call range is really narrow. [/ QUOTE ] roflburgers
|
|
#37
11-26-2007, 05:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 200NL - Yell at me
[ QUOTE ]
If you believe your hand to be a bluff catcher on this flop, NOT betting is a pretty bad option as well as it narrows your range significantly and only succeeds in getting you 1 step towards a showdown where you feel you have zero equity. [/ QUOTE ] We have a bluff-catcher. Villain is unlikely to bluff by check/calling. When you have a bluff-catcher, there's value in giving villains a chance to actually bluff. That said, fold pre-flop FFS.
|
|
#38
11-26-2007, 06:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 200NL - Yell at me
[ QUOTE ]
A bluff catcher or a semibluff catcher in which you get chased down a ton by not value betting? [/ QUOTE ] jc, I think this is largely player and stakes dependant. At msnl against more aggro opponents betting is more likely to induce a bluff/semibluff but against this player at these stakes I think checking to induce is much better against his likely range.
|
|
#39
11-26-2007, 06:19 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 200NL - Yell at me
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If you believe your hand to be a bluff catcher on this flop, NOT betting is a pretty bad option as well as it narrows your range significantly and only succeeds in getting you 1 step towards a showdown where you feel you have zero equity. [/ QUOTE ] We have a bluff-catcher. Villain is unlikely to bluff by check/calling. When you have a bluff-catcher, there's value in giving villains a chance to actually bluff. That said, fold pre-flop FFS. [/ QUOTE ] You make a good point as always Bilbo, however the way the hand is played, it would appear that hero believes his hand is only good as a bluff. In that case, he pretty much has to bet the flop in order to salvage any bluff value he may believe he has. For the record, I’m with you on the value of a bluff catcher being to catch bluffs, however (and perhaps I misinterpreted) I think what hero really meant is that his hand post flop is only good as a bluff (as if he truly believed it to be a bluff catcher, he would have simply called the river against any opponent with some semblance of hand reading skills).
|
|
#40
11-26-2007, 06:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 200NL - Yell at me
[ QUOTE ]
You make a good point as always Bilbo, however the way the hand is played, it would appear that hero believes his hand is only good as a bluff. In that case, he pretty much has to bet the flop in order to salvage any bluff value he may believe he has. For the record, I’m with you on the value of a bluff catcher being to catch bluffs, however (and perhaps I misinterpreted) I think what hero really meant is that his hand post flop is only good as a bluff (as if he truly believed it to be a bluff catcher, he would have simply called the river against any opponent with some semblance of hand reading skills). [/ QUOTE ] He only made this assessment after villain lead both the turn and the river. Obviously if villain leads turn and checks river he would expect his hand to be good. I don't think this is the correct assessment but I'm pretty sure op considered his hand a bluff catcher on the flop/turn and then on the river decided he had no showdown value.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
