Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Poker > Heads Up Poker

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 11-02-2007, 02:38 PM
BarryLyndon BarryLyndon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,590
Default Re: NL100: This [censored] lagtard whore

[ QUOTE ]
Why did you checkraise the flop actually? You might have had a good reason, but you didn't tell it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, because $1 bets into $12 pots make me insane. There is more, of course: I wanted to charge him for draws and make him make ridiculous bad calls with midpairs and what not. Like, he would call A8o or Q8 in this spot, and likely check it down or bluff if a bad river came. The problem is that a bad turn AND river came. I was by far more prepared to call a bluff with a bad river came (like, for instance, he may try to bluff a mid pair if the cards game Ax 2s instead).

Being OOP in this hand with this flop sucks. In truth, if he bets $4 on the flop or something, for instance, I just smooth call. The $1 into $12 is just insanely retarted, but perhaps I should have adhered to the philosophy that this bet is the equivalent of a check and just called.

Also, if he has a king, he's more likely to fire at the turn. He will check it down if he doesn't, I feel.

Barry
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-02-2007, 02:46 PM
Vinetou Vinetou is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: betting on everything
Posts: 1,052
Default Re: NL100: This [censored] lagtard whore

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why did you checkraise the flop actually? You might have had a good reason, but you didn't tell it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, because $1 bets into $12 pots make me insane. There is more, of course: I wanted to charge him for draws and make him make ridiculous bad calls with midpairs and what not. Like, he would call A8o or Q8 in this spot, and likely check it down or bluff if a bad river came. The problem is that a bad turn AND river came. I was by far more prepared to call a bluff with a bad river came (like, for instance, he may try to bluff a mid pair if the cards game Ax 2s instead).

Being OOP in this hand with this flop sucks. In truth, if he bets $4 on the flop or something, for instance, I just smooth call. The $1 into $12 is just insanely retarted, but perhaps I should have adhered to the philosophy that this bet is the equivalent of a check and just called.

Also, if he has a king, he's more likely to fire at the turn. He will check it down if he doesn't, I feel.

Barry

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right. You should treat it like a check. It drives me insane too, but you don't know if he is doing this with a great hand so you might just wait for the turn to make your decision. If you decided to c/c, you should do this and not change your decision after he made that ridicolous bet unless there is some metagame reason for that.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-02-2007, 02:47 PM
KexChoklad123 KexChoklad123 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 287
Default Re: NL100: This [censored] lagtard whore

[ QUOTE ]
The $1 bet on the flop is almost never a king on this board. There are too many draws to charge and (let it be known to those who don't like a c/r), he will call with a midpair.

The river, honestly, I'm glad some people agree that it's a reasonable call. I'll give the results - he showed 87. I thought about block betting this river. More and more I see these overbets of slightly more than the pot on loaded boards me exactly what they are - the made hand. This player simply isn't tricky enough to try to turn J10o into a bluff. And there are more combinations of hands that beat me that don't. I feel that I should have folded.

Barry

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would he turn JT into a bluff? If he bets it he is not bluffing, look at your line
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-02-2007, 02:52 PM
Vinetou Vinetou is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: betting on everything
Posts: 1,052
Default Re: NL100: This [censored] lagtard whore

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The $1 bet on the flop is almost never a king on this board. There are too many draws to charge and (let it be known to those who don't like a c/r), he will call with a midpair.

The river, honestly, I'm glad some people agree that it's a reasonable call. I'll give the results - he showed 87. I thought about block betting this river. More and more I see these overbets of slightly more than the pot on loaded boards me exactly what they are - the made hand. This player simply isn't tricky enough to try to turn J10o into a bluff. And there are more combinations of hands that beat me that don't. I feel that I should have folded.

Barry

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would he turn JT into a bluff? If he bets it he is not bluffing, look at your line

[/ QUOTE ]

You made a good point there. I would probably value bet this if I was a villain.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-02-2007, 03:09 PM
BarryLyndon BarryLyndon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,590
Default Re: NL100: This [censored] lagtard whore

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The $1 bet on the flop is almost never a king on this board. There are too many draws to charge and (let it be known to those who don't like a c/r), he will call with a midpair.

The river, honestly, I'm glad some people agree that it's a reasonable call. I'll give the results - he showed 87. I thought about block betting this river. More and more I see these overbets of slightly more than the pot on loaded boards me exactly what they are - the made hand. This player simply isn't tricky enough to try to turn J10o into a bluff. And there are more combinations of hands that beat me that don't. I feel that I should have folded.

Barry

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would he turn JT into a bluff? If he bets it he is not bluffing, look at your line

[/ QUOTE ]

You made a good point there. I would probably value bet this if I was a villain.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that he did turn it into a bluff. I said he wouldn't, thereby reducing chances he is bluffing. I did give him a percent chance that he made a value bet with JT here. However, I don't think the cahnce of him making it a value bet was substantial enough to justify a call.

Barry
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-02-2007, 03:11 PM
BarryLyndon BarryLyndon is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,590
Default Re: NL100: This [censored] lagtard whore

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why did you checkraise the flop actually? You might have had a good reason, but you didn't tell it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, because $1 bets into $12 pots make me insane. There is more, of course: I wanted to charge him for draws and make him make ridiculous bad calls with midpairs and what not. Like, he would call A8o or Q8 in this spot, and likely check it down or bluff if a bad river came. The problem is that a bad turn AND river came. I was by far more prepared to call a bluff with a bad river came (like, for instance, he may try to bluff a mid pair if the cards game Ax 2s instead).

Being OOP in this hand with this flop sucks. In truth, if he bets $4 on the flop or something, for instance, I just smooth call. The $1 into $12 is just insanely retarted, but perhaps I should have adhered to the philosophy that this bet is the equivalent of a check and just called.

Also, if he has a king, he's more likely to fire at the turn. He will check it down if he doesn't, I feel.

Barry

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right. You should treat it like a check. It drives me insane too, but you don't know if he is doing this with a great hand so you might just wait for the turn to make your decision. If you decided to c/c, you should do this and not change your decision after he made that ridicolous bet unless there is some metagame reason for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-02-2007, 06:26 PM
creedofhubris creedofhubris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Now Coaching
Posts: 4,469
Default Re: NL100: This [censored] lagtard whore

vs. villain you describe I like leading flop and then leading turn, committing yourself.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-02-2007, 08:15 PM
Vinetou Vinetou is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: betting on everything
Posts: 1,052
Default Re: NL100: This [censored] lagtard whore

[ QUOTE ]
vs. villain you describe I like leading flop and then leading turn, committing yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if the turn comes a 7s?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-03-2007, 01:02 AM
creedofhubris creedofhubris is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Now Coaching
Posts: 4,469
Default Re: NL100: This [censored] lagtard whore

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
vs. villain you describe I like leading flop and then leading turn, committing yourself.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if the turn comes a 7s?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, since we've got Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], and he's a megafish, I still like a bet, because then we don't need to worry about what to do on a river card.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.