|
|
#11
09-17-2006, 08:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL25: 96s and a combo draw -- Oops!
[ QUOTE ]
Neither player individually is a massive favourite against you no matter what, but both in concert can easily have you crushed. [/ QUOTE ] Yes, I know. What I'm saying is that I made the impulsive decision that there was a decent chance that CO wasn't stomping on my outs versus MP. I had the impression that he was the type who wasn't going to worry greatly about his pot odds or the hands he might be up against. It's possible I gave him too wide of a range at the time and also am being results-oriented, though. Anyway, CO just had KK. 
|
|
#12
09-17-2006, 08:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL25: 96s and a combo draw -- Oops!
[ QUOTE ]
Care to share the results? [/ QUOTE ] It was interesting, because the third spade hit on the river (and the board hadn't paired), and I was halfway expecting the pot to go to CO. But it didn't. He had KK (including the Ks), and MP had the other two 6's. So the pot went my way, and I thought, "Man, what a suckout." (I certainly didn't feel proud of myself or anything.)
|
|
#15
09-17-2006, 08:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL25: 96s and a combo draw -- Oops!
[ QUOTE ]
don't raise the flop [/ QUOTE ] Reasons? Seems like a fine place for a standard semi-bluff. If the pot were heads-up it might be better, but still seems fine to me.
|
|
#16
09-17-2006, 08:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL25: 96s and a combo draw -- Oops!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] don't raise the flop [/ QUOTE ] Reasons? Seems like a fine place for a standard semi-bluff. If the pot were heads-up it might be better, but still seems fine to me. [/ QUOTE ] what better hand folds?
|
|
#17
09-17-2006, 08:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL25: 96s and a combo draw -- Oops!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] don't raise the flop [/ QUOTE ] Reasons? Seems like a fine place for a standard semi-bluff. If the pot were heads-up it might be better, but still seems fine to me. [/ QUOTE ] what better hand folds? [/ QUOTE ] It's called a semi-bluff for a reason. Raising the flop disguises your FD if you hit, plus allows you to see a free river. Calling the flop then having to fold to a PSB on the turn would suck. Ok, I'm not posting anymore or else I'll be a pooh-bah, and I'm not ready for that.
|
|
#19
09-17-2006, 09:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL25: 96s and a combo draw -- Oops!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] don't raise the flop [/ QUOTE ] Reasons? Seems like a fine place for a standard semi-bluff. If the pot were heads-up it might be better, but still seems fine to me. [/ QUOTE ] what better hand folds? [/ QUOTE ] It's called a semi-bluff for a reason. Raising the flop disguises your FD if you hit, plus allows you to see a free river. Calling the flop then having to fold to a PSB on the turn would suck. Ok, I'm not posting anymore or else I'll be a pooh-bah, and I'm not ready for that. [/ QUOTE ] a PB is at 1600, not 1500, so we can continue this for a bit. My point was, this isn't a semi-bluff if not better hand folds. How can you be bluffing and not make a better hand fold, right? And since our raise on the flop would have to be a PSR, its just as expensive to call flop and turn, than PSR flop and check behind turn. The disadvantage of raise flop, is that it reopens the betting, and means you're puting an entire stack in as a 70/30 dog or on a coinflip. Every1 always says we're raising/betting with FD for deception. IMO, this is way over-rated. If a player is bad, they'll call even if you do hit, if a player is good, he knows you can be raising with a FD, so you either don't need hte deception, or you don't have it. I really want to emphasise that a pair and low FD is not nearly as strong as people seem to think it is, especially in a multiway basically limped pot. Its so easy to be up against a higher pair and a higher FD and have close to 0 equity. Lastly, if you say that you're raising flop for value, I can just about see that, but I think its slightly thin
|
|
#20
09-17-2006, 09:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL25: 96s and a combo draw -- Oops!
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] don't raise the flop [/ QUOTE ] Reasons? Seems like a fine place for a standard semi-bluff. If the pot were heads-up it might be better, but still seems fine to me. [/ QUOTE ] what better hand folds? [/ QUOTE ] FWIW, at the time I was making the raise, I figured MP most likely had nothing and would fold regardless. I also figured I was well ahead of CO's range, but I also wasn't counting on him to bet again on the turn if I called. I was thinking I'd most likely take it down immediately versus CO's 4-5 outs (and then whatever outs MP would have folded anyway), and I was okay with doing that if he wasn't going to keep betting. (Also, NL25 players kind of seem to freeze up on flush cards, especially versus someone who appears to be drawing, so I wasn't sure how much value to give to my implied odds on a call.) I may have underestimated his range, though. I'm not really sure CO would automatically c-bet, and, if he would, I'm not sure that c-bet would be pot-sized. But, anyway, those were some of my confused thoughts. It is true that my two-pair outs are well disguised, and, really, I should have some decent implied odds for all of my outs if CO has an overpair, like he actually did. So, on those occasions where I'm up against an overpair, I do offer a coinflip to CO when I could have played for implied odds instead.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
