($114) Getting tough on position abusers

[ryanghall]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you take this line with big pairs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, sometimes. Also, to those of you that are saying JJ/TT wouldn't he bet more on the turn if his goal was to get it in? Those 2 hands certainly aren't the first ones I'm putting him on at this point, it reeks of 66 to me.

Ryan

[suzzer99]

[ QUOTE ]
Suzzer,
Is there any difference between TT and a baby pair? Does RGH ever show up with a hand between 44 and TT here?

[/ QUOTE ]

As I've always said, I want a positive read villian is a 2p2-clone or a hihgly-thinking player before I put him on narrowing my range like that.

[ryanghall]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Suzzer,
Is there any difference between TT and a baby pair? Does RGH ever show up with a hand between 44 and TT here?

[/ QUOTE ]

As I've always said, I want a positive read villian is a 2p2-clone or a hihgly-thinking player before I put him on narrowing my range like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, for almost all players, 44 is going to shrivel up and feel much worse than TT-88 here.

Ryan

[Pudge714]

I'm confused why you call him a position abuser and put him on such a narrow range.

[ryanghall]

There's obviously good hands he could have. He could have AA/KK. He could have 77. I'm not saying JJ to whatever isn't in his range. It just looks by his line like he very often has 77 or something he's willing to get away from, from my experience.

Ryan

[Pudge714]

I'm just confused why you call him a position abuser yet you seem to think his range is entirely PPs.

[warrantofice]

d-d-d-d-d-d onk

[ryanghall]

What do you think his range is? He could be floating big cards but PPs make up a fairly large amount of his range here IMO.

Ryan

[Pudge714]

Ryan,
Your range could be right, but if that is the case I would hardly call him a "position abuser"

[AMT]

sorry, Ryan,

All pudge is saying based on the posts and our aim convo is that there is a seemingly big gap between your read description and your assigned range, thats all.