|
|
#11
11-17-2007, 06:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 3 street bluff that seemed mandatory 5/10
[ QUOTE ]
3 bet pf. give up on turn as played. [/ QUOTE ] This deep, oop, against an UTG raiser, i don't think you have to 3bet. As played - hard to comment w/o more reads/history. But if he's a reg who's can fold QQ then I like this river bet - as villain never (or very rarely) has a big hand here. 
|
|
#12
11-17-2007, 06:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 3 street bluff that seemed mandatory 5/10
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 3 bet pf. give up on turn as played. [/ QUOTE ] This deep, oop, against an UTG raiser, i don't think you have to 3bet. As played - hard to comment w/o more reads/history. But if he's a reg who's can fold QQ then I like this river bet - as villain never (or very rarely) has a big hand here. [/ QUOTE ] I`m IP which makes 3-betting even worse imo.
|
|
#13
11-17-2007, 06:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 3 street bluff that seemed mandatory 5/10
Sorry, thought u were in the blinds. That said, if we want to get into a PF discussion - you'd really rather 3-bet AQ oop? I don't think you have to 3bet this deep in either situation (at least not all the time)... but if I was going to 3bet a hand that could easily be dominated, I think i'd much rather be in position.
|
|
#14
11-17-2007, 06:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 3 street bluff that seemed mandatory 5/10
[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, thought u were in the blinds. That said, if we want to get into a PF discussion - you'd really rather 3-bet AQ oop? I don't think you have to 3bet this deep in either situation (at least not all the time)... but if I was going to 3bet a hand that could easily be dominated, I think i'd much rather be in position. [/ QUOTE ] Thing is that if I 3-bet I have a much easier time dumping this in case villain 4-bets if I`m oop. I would still fold if I get 4-bet ip but would hate myself for having reraised in the first place. When the pot gets bigger preflop our positional advantage declines.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
