Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="eetenor, post: 5774359, member: 385063"] Thank U 4 Posting. You may wish to think about this V's approach to this hand and that may allow you to approach similar players in the same manner in the future. Employing standardized approaches to players such as this may not be the most advantageous strategy. So by starting at the results and working backwards from there we can get an idea of this V's thinking. So this V leads flop thinking you were trying to steal pot preflop with some weak holdings and would fold to some leads. As indicated by your description of the table dynamics above and the results of the hand. At this point vs a "fishy" Villain who leads flop I would not credit them with the ability to fold JJ-22 etc so I would be exploiting them on the turn by checking back my drawing hands and betting my value hands. I would not try to revert to a fundamental strategy. I would use that type of strategy vs a "solid" unknown V. Working back from the results we see the V's actual thinking When you call flop this V believes you could be floating. V checks turn and you bet half pot. V tanks and decides to call. While you describe the V as fishy you should be aware that this V took the time to think about your range here and made the correct call vs possible bluffs instead of just insta calling. The turn is when this V decided to call all bets. The V is taking a stand vs a bully here as indicated by the results. So if we are to get folds from this type of V in the future we would not choose this turn sizing. We need to recognize our SPR on the turn and have our turn bet sizing reflect what we are trying to do Semi bluff. Also our SPR on the turn is 1.1 so if we had KK here why would we bet half our stack in a 3 bet pot when we are expecting our V to call all pairs? If the V is drawing to the flush and we knew it, would we not shove turn at 1.1 SPR vs a half pot sizing? So should our bluffs not also be shoves vs a half pot sizing at 1.1 SPR? If we were to choose a fundamental strategy vs this V? However we are working with this V who called with A3 and may have called a turn shove as it looks bluffy. Another reason I would not revert to a standard strategy. So versus this V and the way they are thinking based on table dynamics, we want to force them to have to think twice- once on the turn and again on the river about calling us. Make this V be worried about looking bad making 2 silly calls not one. They are a thinking V as they did tank so we can get them to think about the river on the turn. That is a note we should have had on this V by the way if possible. We always want to note when V's stop to think and then make bluff catching calls even if they are incorrect in their thinking. It is that they think that we can use against them. We want to use a smaller turn size- max river size betting strategy vs this V and how they are thinking about this situation. So if we bet 20bb turn V is not making the all or nothing choice on the turn they now know they have to do it again on the river. Then on the river we are betting 58 bb into 100 a bigger decision for the the V than as played. The V may call but we are applying much more pressure on the V to be right twice versus what may seem like more of a value line to this V. Seeing the outcome of the hand I would then realize that my V was "call" tilting based on the aggro table and adjust my approach to them based on that info. Therefore I would recognize that I would not adjust to a standard strategy in spots like this. Instead I would be looking for indicators of tilt and exploiting those indicators. Hope this helps :):) [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us