as i said earlier, this bloke had bought in to the table (it was $500NL) with $200 and was justy MIZING. His stack reached over $1200 very quickly. My read into his poker sould was that he was running it up, and if he had the second nuts as I suspected (he ended up having the 3rd nuts), then he would risk that huge stack in an effort to double up (effectively we each had over 2 full buy ins - I had like 1250 and had him covered by a bit).
This is a lesser discussed aspect of the game - but I feel one of my strong points, especially in live play. I can "look" (sometimes virtually when playing online) into someones personality and determine their motivations. I had not seen this guy before so he wouldnt necessarily know that I really would never make a raise like that without the nuts - but he WAS the type of guy that would call a bet like that without 'em. I mean, its easy to be a monday morning QB, and say it was a stroke of genius to overbet the pot like that - but mathematically, look at it...I made over 2 full stacks on that hand, $1100. The pot was what, $200 on the river? If I made a standard VB of like $100-$200, and he calls - then its a nice pot. I net like 2/5 of a buy in. The way ity played out, I made 2 buy ins. I have to be right on my read like 1/5 times for this risk to work. Here it did.
Goes back to my earlier theory on pushing with the nuts (based on reads) as I was coming up the ranks from 25NL to here....if you have a read that your villain is a gambooler, a maniac, an idiot or a sheriff, its a move thats just crazy enough to work. I think its EV is very large compared to a straight VB. I would be very interested to hear someone like Aisthesis's opinion on the matter..maybe a MOD can move this post to the strategy section and away from the complaining/bragging section where a true scholar like Ais wouldnt be caught dead....lol.Statistics: Posted by Allstar7 — Sun Aug 20, 2006 10:45 am
]]>