Poker Forum > Strategy
theory - how would you play it?
AMRN:
--- Quote from: TheSnapper on July 22, 2010, 22:23:37 PM ---
--- Quote from: AMRN on July 22, 2010, 22:08:34 PM ---
By leading, we are giving him the chance to bluff raise.... in his position, given that we led every street on this board, he can be fairly safe in his assumption that we are unlikely to show up with a J..... so he knows that a position raise is going to get through most of the time. However, by checking, unless he overbets, we can get our marginal hand to showdown cheaply.
--- End quote ---
Its highly unlikely you"ll get raised here as a bluff and if you suspect villain will bluff if you lead, not leading would be a mistake.
--- End quote ---
thing is Brendan, if he does raise the river, he could have any number of hands that beat our weak two pair hand, but is just as likely to have air.... but we really want to get this hand to showdown. We are going to be asked to call a lump reliant on a read, wheras by checking we get our marginal hand to showdown safely and cheaply.
I appreciate that missing value when we"re ahead is as bad as losing chips, however I think there are some circumstances, particularly when out of position, that getting a marginal hand to showdown cheaply is the better option.
Swinebag:
tough one this
I initially thought bet fold river as you could get called by some worse hands and raised by better ones and would lose the minimum compared to chk calling a bigger river bet where we are behind.
But that board looks a great one for a river bluff too and I"d rather pick off one bet rather than 2 on the river so I"m for check calling this one.
I also would be check calling the turn as well but I am a station
WYoung83:
Depends on stack sizes at start of hand, and also ratio of our 2 barrel bets. because with all the action so far looks like the pot has taken up a large % of stack if we didnt started with 100bbs. (havent had time to read others replies, this may have been mentioned)
Could be hard to bet this river. So hard to do blocker bets nowadays, because agressive players with position will just raise on you with nothing because you bet looks obvious. And checking will induce either a bluff or you will get value towned. Hes probably gonna check behind show down hands.
Read a hand from a couple of years ago very similar to this on Daniel Negranues blog, and he found himself oop with top pair off the flop vs agressive player, turn brings 4 cards to a gutshot, and he acually check min-raised turn to slow his opponent down, and induce a check check river. Cant actually remember outcome, but i know his opponent checked river behind because he didnt want to get check raised twice in the hand.
Hope this makes sense to you guys.
TheSnapper:
--- Quote from: AMRN on July 23, 2010, 11:09:16 AM ---
--- Quote from: TheSnapper on July 22, 2010, 22:23:37 PM ---
--- Quote from: AMRN on July 22, 2010, 22:08:34 PM ---
By leading, we are giving him the chance to bluff raise.... in his position, given that we led every street on this board, he can be fairly safe in his assumption that we are unlikely to show up with a J..... so he knows that a position raise is going to get through most of the time. However, by checking, unless he overbets, we can get our marginal hand to showdown cheaply.
--- End quote ---
Its highly unlikely you"ll get raised here as a bluff and if you suspect villain will bluff if you lead, not leading would be a mistake.
--- End quote ---
thing is Brendan, if he does raise the river, he could have any number of hands that beat our weak two pair hand, but is just as likely to have air.... but we really want to get this hand to showdown. We are going to be asked to call a lump reliant on a read, wheras by checking we get our marginal hand to showdown safely and cheaply.
I appreciate that missing value when we"re ahead is as bad as losing chips, however I think there are some circumstances, particularly when out of position, that getting a marginal hand to showdown cheaply is the better option.
--- End quote ---
Just to clarify Steve, I would definately check call essentially to bluff catch. I don"t think we get bluffed very often if we lead, though if this is another high stakes hand the reverse is likely the case and leading is best, but thats a whole other level of play. Looks like I misinterpreted your post. Apologies.
TheSnapper:
--- Quote from: Paulie_D on July 23, 2010, 11:07:31 AM ---
--- Quote from: TheSnapper on July 23, 2010, 10:44:13 AM ---
Insightful.
--- End quote ---
Why not all three..., OK well, at least two of the choices? Seriously, I bet because I think I have the best hand, which also gives me value & protection if he calls when behind PLUS I want to represent more strength than I actually have.
;D
--- End quote ---
You raise pf and on the flop you have a weak top pair hand on a draw heavy board that is all over villains pf calling range. Whether you currently have the best hand is not clear just yet.
You may well be ahead and often you will have the best hand currently yet have as little as 45% equity with 2 cards to come.
against a wide continuing range like...
TT-66,QJs,Jc9c,Tc9c,Tc8c,9c8c,8c7c,8s7s,7c6c,QJo,JTo,T9o,98o
we have 52% equity, in position this plays out a lot easier but oop and likely facing a competent opponent. Pot control is my main objective and folding to any significant action can never be too big a mistake and is more often correct. In summary, villain is in control of pot size throughout the hand and if it the pot gets big, its because he wants it that way.
--- Quote from: Paulie_D ---
I want to represent more strength than I actually have.
--- End quote ---
Villains calling range contains X% hands that beat us and Y% hands we have value against, the ratio of X:Y is largely dependent on the strength we represent, this is a basic poker concept.
representing more strength than I actually have = Bluff
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version