Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Dorkus Malorkus, post: 471019, member: 6020"] db, I think we've gotten to the stage where we can agree to disagree. I'm still going to ramble though. :) To check-call as you're suggesting, I need some kind of specific read on villain that urges me to do so. I'm assuming as we're given no such information in the OP that we're acting devoid of reads, and thus know nothing about villain. So we do not know what he is capable of leading the flop with if checked to. We do not know if he is capable of continuing to run a bluff if called, and if so, how far he is willing to go. We do not know if he is an habitual slowplayer. We don't know if he will call preflop raises with weak Aces and habitually overplay them. We don't know if he will slowplay AA preflop. Basically, we don't know much, and as such I feel we need to take the course of action that forces our opponent to define his range of hands the most. If we check-call, villain's likely range is huge. If we bet and are called, we still purport to have the best hand. We can call a reasonable flop raise, but if we miss the turn I think we can actually fold to a big follow-up bet, simply because we can be far more certain that villain has a 'real', strong hand. If we have a read on villain as a LAG, of course we can rope-a-dope. If we have a read on villain as a loose-passive typical calling station, we are obliged to bet. But we have no reads, we have no information, we can make no solid assumptions and if we are to maximise our EV on the hand as a whole we need to get information and narrow villain's range if we're going to go deep into a hand while OOP. You seem to think villain would be 'good' enough to fold a very weak ace, a weaker flush draw, or even something like KQ, perhaps even ~TT if we led the flop. I'd suggest you're giving the average $100NL player too much credit. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us