|
|
#12
05-02-2007, 02:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: How obvious is villain\'s hand? PLO 50
I think it is more likely 33 than 55 because after everyone folds to your turn bet, I would think villian would raise with 55 but not 33. However, I still think a call is in order and probably better than a push because I doubt villain is calling a push with anything less than 33 since we hold KK.
|
|
#13
05-02-2007, 05:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How obvious is villain\'s hand? PLO 50
[ QUOTE ]
Wow, this is the worst thread I have read in a long time... [/ QUOTE ] Constructive criticism is always greatly appreciated. So, are you saying that one should push here everytime and anything else is weak-tight BS, or what?
|
|
#15
05-02-2007, 06:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How obvious is villain\'s hand? PLO 50
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Wow, this is the worst thread I have read in a long time... [/ QUOTE ] Constructive criticism is always greatly appreciated. [/ QUOTE ] I wasn't saying anything about you, but the "monsters under the bed" group think that has infected this thread did make me want to puke. [ QUOTE ] So, are you saying that one should push here everytime and anything else is weak-tight BS, or what? [/ QUOTE ] Villian bought in for $10 and is not a ratholer. That makes him an idiot or highly recreational player very very often. You have less than than 100 big blinds. Now, tell me, what do you think the right play is?
|
|
#16
05-02-2007, 06:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How obvious is villain\'s hand? PLO 50
If the action had been the slightest bit different I'd have agreed 100%. But, in my experience, for this specific sequence of events and at this level, villain has flopped quads more than 50% of the time. Therefore, semi-crying call.
|
|
#17
05-02-2007, 06:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How obvious is villain\'s hand? PLO 50
I think you can eliminate 33xx. Villain would've most likely put you on 5xxx & would've popped you earlier.
So it's either 55xx or 5xxx or a donk bluff. Given he's SB, it's very easy for him to just have 5xxx. I call, b/c I don't think he's going to call a push, unless he has 55xx.
|
|
#18
05-02-2007, 06:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How obvious is villain\'s hand? PLO 50
Just to clarify, I do think villain would stack off with hands less than 55xx. However, this specific sequence (check, check/call, check/pot-raise) on a flopped pair board dramatically skews the probability of villain's hand to 55 and away from all others.
So yes, villain stacks off with lots of hands here, but not all possible hand combinations are equally distributed in this spot. It's kind of a variation on the "each raise makes it more likely villain has what he's representing" argument. As an aside, villain's passivity cost him the rest of my stack. There's a lesson in that too.
|
|
#19
05-02-2007, 08:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How obvious is villain\'s hand? PLO 50
Yes, most people play unbeatable hands very very badly because they don't have enough deception in the rest of their play for their quads and straight flushes to be anything else.
|
|
#20
05-02-2007, 09:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: How obvious is villain\'s hand? PLO 50
I'm still curious to know if anyone thinks villain's hand is obvious enough to fold. My personnal experience actually suggests that the answer is "yes". I'm starting to suspect that the proability that villain has 55 is not just over 50% but over 67%.
If my memory hasn't failed me, when I've been in this kind of spot and called, only once has villain turned up anything other than quads. And in that case, the sequence of events was much different. To be honest, in hindsight, the call was terrible (there was no reason to assume he must have quads and I only had about 25BB left after the call) but it was a long time ago and I was a much weaker player back then. Interestingly, TheRempel was at my table that day and I've always wondered what he thought when I showed my hand.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
