Street by street vs TerrorOfSweden, EPT Barcelona (Hand w/ masters?) - Page 17

Todd Terry · #**161** 10-05-2007, 05:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Todd, he should still have close to 100% of his 3bet range by the time we get to the river.

We lead flop, I don't think he folds practically any of his range. Turn is an A, which he should bet almost 100% of his range on.

Then, by checking, tanking, and calling, we look incredibly weak and its a spot where a lot of players think that they can make you fold by firing the river and will.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this completely, but it leads me to the conclusion that I don't want to play the hand the way it was played. We haven't narrowed his range at all. Are we ahead of his wide range on the river? Probably, although I still have yet to be convinced that he's 3betting that wide in EP. I'm just not willing to call off a huge stack without being somewhat confident that I'm good, and here no one has any clue whether we're good. We can't rule out any hands that beat, and even crush us.

Todd Terry · #**162** 10-05-2007, 05:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
OK, so I'll post riv before I go to Austria, leaving in 30 mins.

I check-tank called 2200 on turn.

River: 3 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img].

I...

[/ QUOTE ]

am a luckbox? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Seriously though, I think your line looks like a flush draw -- call pre, blocking bet on flop, c/c turn. Therefore, I'd be worried about a check behind on the river, and would definitely bet here. I realize this is somewhat counterintuitive, it looks like a flush therefore bet it like a flush, but I think the risk of a check behind is too great here. I think we're getting looked up by a big hand, and are getting checked behind by hands both big and small. Bet 3500, and if he has a big hand, he'll convince himself that we're trying to rep a flush.

Eagles · #**163** 10-05-2007, 06:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If you check, villain bets the river only as a bluff or if he has a lower flush. If you think villain was bluffing/floating all a long, then check. If you think he has something, then bet. I would probably bet the river rather than checking the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is so wrong ... seriously you think a good tricky aggro player like terror of sweeden will only vbet flushes.... wow

edit: I check river or if I bet I bet like 2.5k as a blocker.

adanthar · #**164** 10-05-2007, 08:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
We haven't narrowed his range at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who cares?

Seriously, *who cares*? Do you want to get the most chips in the pot with TPGK against a Scandi superLAG, or do you want to let him put you on a decent hand and proceed to play well?

adanthar · #**165** 10-05-2007, 08:28 PM

oh and I think I probably tank shove riv

Pudge714 · #**166** 10-05-2007, 09:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
oh and I think I probably tank shove riv

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't like that because he is lot more inclined to make crazy bluffs than hero calls.

Todd Terry · #**167** 10-05-2007, 10:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We haven't narrowed his range at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who cares?

Seriously, *who cares*? Do you want to get the most chips in the pot with TPGK against a Scandi superLAG, or do you want to let him put you on a decent hand and proceed to play well?

[/ QUOTE ]

I care at this stack depth, a lot you don't, whatever, it's a difference of opinion.

As to your last question, I don't believe it's an either/or. As you know, my answer to the first part of it is no. As to the second part, you're equating gaining information about his hand with giving away information about ours, which isn't necessarily the case. For example, in this hand, we've learned nothing about Villain's hand prior to the river, but I think he has learned quite a bit about ours.

adanthar · #**168** 10-06-2007, 03:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
For example, in this hand, we've learned nothing about Villain's hand prior to the river, but I think he has learned quite a bit about ours.

[/ QUOTE ]

he's learned we have, like, a king or better or possibly a draw, but if the question is refined to "has he learned enough to not decide to bluff the next card before it hits", the answer is 'hell no'

registrar · #**169** 10-06-2007, 05:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For example, in this hand, we've learned nothing about Villain's hand prior to the river, but I think he has learned quite a bit about ours.

[/ QUOTE ]

he's learned we have, like, a king or better or possibly a draw, but if the question is refined to "has he learned enough to not decide to bluff the next card before it hits", the answer is 'hell no'

[/ QUOTE ]

So why shove? Stacks all wrong for a block - we're giving him no FE and if we bet his calling range is a fraction of the range we're putting him on to get to the river.

River seems like a check.

adanthar · #**170** 10-06-2007, 07:49 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For example, in this hand, we've learned nothing about Villain's hand prior to the river, but I think he has learned quite a bit about ours.

[/ QUOTE ]

he's learned we have, like, a king or better or possibly a draw, but if the question is refined to "has he learned enough to not decide to bluff the next card before it hits", the answer is 'hell no'

[/ QUOTE ]

So why shove?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said to bet or shove the turn/we have the nuts on the river?