#41
|
|||
|
|||
Results...
They both worked. I like #1 more then #2 though. Thanks all.
|
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Results...
how is your aim today?
|
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Fun with JTs, which bluff worked?
[ QUOTE ]
two is meh... i mean why did you decide to bluff the maniac? i think you get called by alot on the river... just make a hand and stack the guy playing 52/50... hes prob not good postflop if hes that bad pf... so hell call you too much. [/ QUOTE ] This was heads up, villain was not a maniac. For what it's worth, I have even looser heads up stats, and I dont think I am a maniac. He was just a LAG HU player. Also, contrary to popular myth, the better play TO bluff is a maniac/looser type simply because their absolute hand values tend to be towards the bottom range. Also, drawing postflop conclusions about preflop numbers is really silly. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Fun with JTs, which bluff worked?
i hate 1, 2 is fine, but against a very good player 1 is fine too
|
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Fun with JTs, which bluff worked?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] honestly hand 1 is pretty bad i hate pf then i hate flop then i slightly dislike turn then i think river is pretty meh hand 2: looks ok [/ QUOTE ] Is flat calling IP the new 3-bet? A few months ago people would say 3-bet to anything when you're IP, but now 3-betting here is horrible. As a side questions, what hands would you think are ok to 3b here pre-flop? low suited connectors? Only premiums? Complete junk? I can't understand how 3betting TJs here is horrible at all, so if anybody would like to elaborate why it would be a bad play I would appreciate it a lot! [/ QUOTE ] It depends on the type of villain. [/ QUOTE ] i try to mix up my calling vs 3betting with sc type hands in these spots. if i were just going to play a single hand in a vacuum i'd probably prefer to just call vs most people but 3betting gives cover for big hands. |
|
|