Hand 0 (Rory calls it Hand 1; I'll quit with the 0-based
numbering, sorry): I don't like betting the river. I had an feeling
(see Rob, I have them) that the guy in the middle was beating me just
slightly when the river came. I actually thought he had Queens -- maybe
even with Q, and was worried I had aces. I just got this
sense from him that he had been really strong preflop and had been
scared away by the flop. I had an inkling of it on the flop, and it got
stronger on the turn. He also seemed tight weak and would likely just
call with many hands that were beating me. Anyway, I also think it's
marginal to bet even without that read, because I'm an
underdog-if-called. Just about the only hand still in there at the end
that can call me that I'm beating is the one you mention.
Hand 2 (Rory's and my numbers sync again here): I think you're
right; it would be tight-weak not to bet the turn there and after
reading your comments, I am glad I made that right decision at the
table. However, I think folding to the raise is right here. One thing
about this particular LAG was that if he couldn't take control of the
hand, he started to just call down until he improved. His raise, based
on this specific guy's play, indicated that he'd improved, and
any way he improves there beats me, because he made at least two bigger
pair, a set, a straight or a flush. Based on my read of him, there is
almost zero chance he had improved to merely a bigger pair. I agree
with you in general about calling down LAGs in that spot, but I think my
read on this guy allowed me to fold, and he was kind enough to confirm
my read by showing his hand.
Hand 3: I didn't raise on the flop because I wanted the pot to
continue multi-way. I agree that maybe a raise preflop was warranted.
I do like raises with good multiway hands from late position, as you
suggest. I think you were right that was a mistake there. I agree with
your assessment if I raise on the flop; he only had KT in the end anyway.
I guess you are right about the raise on the turn, but I also see the
math working a different way. I'm making a 1-to-3 investment, when he
calls, when 1-to-1.6 are my actual odds of winning. Plus, I assure that
I'll make an extra bet when one of my outs come, because he's much more
likely to pay off the made after paying the raise on the turn. Do you
have thoughts on how to reconcile those two math analyses?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-03-22 20:19 (UTC)Hand 0 (Rory calls it Hand 1; I'll quit with the 0-based numbering, sorry): I don't like betting the river. I had an feeling (see Rob, I have them) that the guy in the middle was beating me just slightly when the river came. I actually thought he had Queens -- maybe even with Q
, and was worried I had aces. I just got this
sense from him that he had been really strong preflop and had been
scared away by the flop. I had an inkling of it on the flop, and it got
stronger on the turn. He also seemed tight weak and would likely just
call with many hands that were beating me. Anyway, I also think it's
marginal to bet even without that read, because I'm an
underdog-if-called. Just about the only hand still in there at the end
that can call me that I'm beating is the one you mention.
Hand 2 (Rory's and my numbers sync again here): I think you're right; it would be tight-weak not to bet the turn there and after reading your comments, I am glad I made that right decision at the table. However, I think folding to the raise is right here. One thing about this particular LAG was that if he couldn't take control of the hand, he started to just call down until he improved. His raise, based on this specific guy's play, indicated that he'd improved, and any way he improves there beats me, because he made at least two bigger pair, a set, a straight or a flush. Based on my read of him, there is almost zero chance he had improved to merely a bigger pair. I agree with you in general about calling down LAGs in that spot, but I think my read on this guy allowed me to fold, and he was kind enough to confirm my read by showing his hand.
Hand 3: I didn't raise on the flop because I wanted the pot to continue multi-way. I agree that maybe a raise preflop was warranted. I do like raises with good multiway hands from late position, as you suggest. I think you were right that was a mistake there. I agree with your assessment if I raise on the flop; he only had KT in the end anyway. I guess you are right about the raise on the turn, but I also see the math working a different way. I'm making a 1-to-3 investment, when he calls, when 1-to-1.6 are my actual odds of winning. Plus, I assure that I'll make an extra bet when one of my outs come, because he's much more likely to pay off the made after paying the raise on the turn. Do you have thoughts on how to reconcile those two math analyses?