Razz: Huge pot

[SGspecial]

[ QUOTE ]
The results by the way were just awesome:

Seat 7 had A7____J ,bet 6th with his two pair and paif off 7th with jack high.

Seat 2 had 24____K and overcalled 7th with Q high.

[/ QUOTE ]
In that case, my prescription is for you to spend every waking minute at this table and sit out the other 4 games if you have to. Oh, and value bet your 8's.

[Raxxmataxx]

[ QUOTE ]
FYP

[/ QUOTE ]Nope.

A good player has 0% of playing something like K92, someone willing to play with a K showing has much, much higher probability than that. Certainly someone thinking any K looks good, let alone one as a doorcard, is going to "hm" when seeing K93, or whatever.

Yeah, their hole cards are weighted towards wheel cards. But that doesn't mean we can exclude other hands completely, and every time they hold something really horrible we make out like bandits.

Obviously, they're more likely to have wheelcards when showing a high door card than when showing an ace. But that's a fairly trivial point, and I thought it obivous I was talking about different kind of players rather than the same kind of players showing different kind of door cards. And a player willing to play showing a K is far more likely to play K97 than a random player.

So the fact we should take into consideration when thinking about their ranges isn't that they're showing high cards; it's that they're the kind of player willing to go on with a high card showing. And that range isn't wheel cards only, since the type of players willing to do that includes a high proportion of maniacs, and people playing the wrong game.

[ QUOTE ]
Please see this post for the answer.

[/ QUOTE ]The situation you linked to isn't even a little bit similiar since this is a big multiway pot and two players have shown they will call utterly insane hands with a third one that very well may have something you'd like to knock out.

You also seem to ignore that it's impossible to be in bad shape here, but possible to be in great shape due to someone playing a pair of kings. So from that perspective raising is a freeroll.

There's also the point that for whatever reason these people simply aren't playing anywhere near rationally. What they have shown is that they're willing to call a lot of bets with really bad hands. Which isn't an argument for trying to get them to bluff.

[SGspecial]

I see. If your reads are indicative of your experience at HORSE tables then by all means keep playing them religiously and you should be a big winner vs. villains who raise with a split pair of K's in razz.

[Raxxmataxx]

[ QUOTE ]
I see. If your reads are indicative of your experience at HORSE tables then by all means keep playing them religiously and you should be a big winner vs. villains who raise with a split pair of K's in razz.

[/ QUOTE ]Reads haven't much to do with it, I just explained why your proposed hand range was too tight.

It has much more to do with logic than observation. And the logic is that when you're dealing with someone who has shown himself to commit one obvious, super big mistake the probability of him commiting other similiarly large mistakes shoot up dramatically. It's not reasonable to assume that the demonstrated mistake is the absolute worst one he'll commit.

You're essentially saying "We know they have to at least play wwK and wwT, but surely they can't be worse." whereas I'm saying "we know they play at least wwK and wwT and that dramatically raises the probability they play even worse hands".

It's the same reasoning in hold'em. If you see someone playing T7o early it doesn't mean he'll go all the way to 72o, but it makes very much more likely than if you hadn't seen him play T7 at all.

And you still haven't addressed 44 behind us. Which on further reflection looks way more important than getting the hand ranges right.

Just looking at it quickly it seems pretty clear that getting rid of something like 8544 gains us significant equity even with your proposed range. And if you don't think that hands like that will be more inclined to fold due to a 3-bet, then we have an argument for valuebetting even with assumed smooth draws for K6 and T8.

If we we're talking about capping, you'd have much more of an argument for refraining from betting. I'd still do it, but whatever expectation that bet would have, it would be lower than 3-betting in this spot.

[Praxising]

[ QUOTE ]
After his check, i strongly think seat 2 should bet any decent hand because the danger of me checking behind when i miss is too big but i will pay off a lot if i catch a nine or a ten.

[/ QUOTE ]Thanks, well-explained, even I understood it. Low limits are full of what I call holdem refugees, who all think the check/raise is da bomb. I don't value-bet much against unknown players. But I didn't think of the "risk of opponent folding" scenario in this way before. Some say "only a better hand will call you" but that hasn't been my experience. I find river play the most difficult.