|
|
#31
10-20-2006, 06:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: A Subject that hasnt been discussed.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] H@ll might even have been trying to induce an all-in bluff if he was that confident that his nines were the best hand. [/ QUOTE ] This is the correct answer, except last part, he was obviously in no way certain he had the best hand, but he felt this lead would bring on a bluffpush enough to make it the most profitable line in this situation this time. [/ QUOTE ] that doesnt really answer the question in the OP though, I mean if he leads here to get a push from a bluff but never any other time that won't work long. 
|
|
#32
10-20-2006, 08:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Subject that hasnt been discussed.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] H@ll might even have been trying to induce an all-in bluff if he was that confident that his nines were the best hand. [/ QUOTE ] This is the correct answer, except last part, he was obviously in no way certain he had the best hand, but he felt this lead would bring on a bluffpush enough to make it the most profitable line in this situation this time. [/ QUOTE ] that doesnt really answer the question in the OP though, I mean if he leads here to get a push from a bluff but never any other time that won't work long. [/ QUOTE ] Most people who do this donk with a wide range.
|
|
#35
10-21-2006, 09:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Subject that hasnt been discussed.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] H@ll might even have been trying to induce an all-in bluff if he was that confident that his nines were the best hand. [/ QUOTE ] This is the correct answer, except last part, he was obviously in no way certain he had the best hand, but he felt this lead would bring on a bluffpush enough to make it the most profitable line in this situation this time. [/ QUOTE ] ahhh nice 
|
|
#36
10-26-2006, 04:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Subject that hasnt been discussed.
duck, I don't get it. I know that one should not be results oriented - but if in fact we do consider the results, H@ll WOULD have won the pot with my suggested line of check-raising. Obviously, Bld does not call all-in after being check-raised on the flop.
|
|
#38
10-27-2006, 09:18 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Subject that hasnt been discussed.
[ QUOTE ]
duck, I don't get it. I know that one should not be results oriented - but if in fact we do consider the results, H@ll WOULD have won the pot with my suggested line of check-raising. Obviously, Bld does not call all-in after being check-raised on the flop. [/ QUOTE ] H@ll got all-in on the flop when he was ahead. This is more +EV than check-raising the flop and having Bld fold. I think these are the results that are important and back up his play in this spot. The fact that he was outdrawn doesn't change this.
|
|
#39
10-27-2006, 03:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Subject that hasnt been discussed.
[ QUOTE ]
duck, I don't get it. I know that one should not be results oriented - but if in fact we do consider the results, H@ll WOULD have won the pot with my suggested line of check-raising. Obviously, Bld does not call all-in after being check-raised on the flop. [/ QUOTE ] Samo, you say this like it would be a good thing for Hall. If you accept MDMA's answer, which I do, then of course, you want Bld to get all-in, whether he wins the pot or not. I know you understand this, so I don't get what you're saying. Then, there's this: [ QUOTE ] i dont think you should be leading into a preflop reraiser with ~normal sized stacks if you don't think your hand is best. so it would usually be to induce a raise, probably because the line is so strange and not taken often. [/ QUOTE ] KRANTZ, do you really believe that you shouldn't be leading here as a rule if you don't think you have the best hand? That strikes me as bizarre. The point is that you establish that you will donk with a wide range of hands, so you afford yourself another spot to outguess your opponent in the match. Especially with 100BB stacks, you enable yourself to win pots with the worst hand (or a hand that prefers to take it down immediately), in spots where a check-raise would leave you both committed.
|
|
#40
10-27-2006, 04:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: A Subject that hasnt been discussed.
cero, i mean that i wouldnt lead unless i had a hand with no showdown value at all (as a total bluff), or with a hand that i'm going to bet/fold - i'm leading because i think he's either flat out folding to my bet when i have air, or because he will bluff-raise all-in enough of the time for it to be a better line than c/ring (most notably because when c/ring, he will likely only call with a better hand on this board)
i dont see any value in leading to "find out where we're at", any reason for it at all, but i don't THINK this is what you mean (i pretty much echoed what MDMA said here, so i'm thinking i may have chosen words poorly but i'm too lazy to look all the way back at what i wrote) and if you're meaning that we're leading because Bld might just flat out fold a better TP hand or small overpair some of the time (again, i don't think this is what you mean), then i just totally disagree with that we're either good, or we're not good here, and bld is a very strong, aggro player, so there are ways of getting him AI that might not apply to ABC, weaker players
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
