Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="zebranky, post: 472441, member: 14994"] Here's the heart of the problem for me - how on earth do you know you have his hand beat? Assuming he does bet the turn (and I'm only making that assumption for arguments sake), how do you know he doesn't have the Ace? Obviously, if he doesn't this method works. But if he does, now you're following with the 2nd best hand. So you call the turn either way, and see the river - unless its a K, you're still not sure if you have the best hand. You called his turn bet, so he will (assuming that he has the weak A) check the river, can you bet? No, you don't have the information you need to raise - so you check it down as well. If he doesn't have an A, you still haven't bet in a way that forces him to reveal hes got TP - so you really shouldn't bet anyway. Either way, I think you effectively called the turn "blind," because this technique requires you show the strength, but doesn't follow with a raise. Now assume he has a strong Ace. He bets the river - and you say fold your hand. Fair enough, but why call the turn if you're just going to either fold or check the river? So lets assume he checks to you and you do bet on the river. If he folds - it worked, congratulations. But if he wouldn't fold on the flop with a weak Ace, he's not going to fold on the river, either. As best I can tell, you've just extended the amount of time it takes to find out whether he has the Ace (and put more money in the pot on the turn to do so), for exactly the same result as if you'd bet the flop. Not to mention effectively giving up 2 free cards along the way when your hand is unlikely to improve. I really think you're mangling the application of WAWB. If YOU had the Ace, then it would apply, but given that the PP here is quite possibly 2nd best, I don't see how that fits as "way ahead." [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us