Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="F Paulsson, post: 365425, member: 6979"] Most likely, yeah. But by betting this flop into a field of two players, you're essentially saying "this flop helped me" (AK, KK) or "I have that beat" (AA). So if you're going to represent one of those three hands, then the question boils down to how you would play those three with this flop. If you check, and the loose/aggressive player decides to bet, is the difference really that big from if you bet and he calls? Actually, look at it this way: If you bet and he calls, you virtually guaranteed you're beaten (or he's chasing with A-high, but a well sized bet or a push should deal with that). If you check and he bets, his range is a lot bigger. He could easily be betting A-high just to try to steal. If you want to play this flop, I'm suggesting that checking with the intention of pushing to a bet might be a viable way to do it. A checkraise screams "fear me, peasants!" a lot more than a continuation bet. :) Are we worried about the donk in the middle at all? I have no real idea on where to place that player. The decent-but-with-loose-aggressive-tendencies player, I want to put on a suited connector because of the limping. Possibility that you're looking at a pair (which could well have turned set with this flop), but hard to say and if it's a low or medium pair, it's poorly played to cold-call that raise. I want to rule out high pairs because of the lack of preflop raises (barring maybe AA and a tricky play). What about KT, K9 or KJs? They're trouble hands to play into a raise because they're so easily dominated, but are they completely out of the picture? What about KQs? But, then again, I'm not sure I should give random players too much credit for hand selection. :p [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us