]]>
]]>
]]>
And I agree the guy needed to raise those 7s preflop.
I am shocked that anybody can put the BB (me) on AJ here. Who checks TPTK on the flop out of position then flat calls a bet and a raise ... and then thinks he's good catching a miracle two pair? I would never ever play it that way. Would you?
Similarly Ax of hearts or a combo draw of some sort ... that would be a really dumb way to play it. You want to be betting/raising on the flop, not the turn. The CO's line just screamed set. Trying to push people off sets when you have only 1 street to catch up ... no thank you.
Anyway, the guy with 77 had been playing very LAG preflop, mostly following up his preflop raises with full pot bets whether he hit or missed. This smallish flop raise, then the big turn bet, made it clear he had a set. I was pretty clear he had the set on the flop, actually. So I thought this was the best way to play the flopped straight. Let your opponents make the biggest mistake you think they will make (quoting TUP from another hand where I flopped the nut straight) -- and calling a push on the turn is way worse for a set than calling it on the flop. If the board had paired on the turn I'm pretty sure I could have gotten away from this. If the board had 3-flushed I don't get his stack, but I do get a pretty good amount: I can bet it for an amount that I think he can call to chase his boat outs.
Apparently hard2tel thinks I'm not a half decent player based on this hand... guess I have a lot to learn.
But thanks for all the replies. I was pretty sure he couldn't get away from his hand once he had committed so much, but he did think for an awful long time before he called. Board didn't pair on the river.
Statistics: Posted by k3nt — Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:49 am
]]>
]]>
]]>
But that doesn't mean that people necessarily do it. I think a lot of players with T9 here will try waiting for a safe turn or something like that. I really do think you'll see T9 and 88 here quite often, but the other hands in the mix surely have to make up at least an additional 1/3 of villain's range.
Statistics: Posted by Aisthesis — Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:57 pm
]]>
I also liked Stone's inclusion of AXs with flush draw. Probably wouldn't have occurred to me at the table, but I think that has to be in there in all probability, too.
Your LAG play also speaks even more for a call imo. I'm not excited about this one, as you're definitely behind quite a bit, but I don't think you should be laying this one down.
Statistics: Posted by Aisthesis — Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:50 pm
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
Problem is, his play on the turn is consistent with all those hands. If he has T9 or a bigger set, he want to get it in, if he has AJ he wants to get it in, if he had the A-high flush draw, he's thinking "fuck it, either I am good or I have outs", and wants to get it in.
However, against that range you're still doing pretty good. Even without Axs against only the straight, bigger set or top two you've got 38% equity and only need about 30%. Of course, without AJ in the equation you're screwed, but I really think AJ is a likely candidate. And if you add Axs then you're doing really good.
Conclusion, the only time it is correct to fold is if you're very sure you're beaten now. If you think he could play AJ or Axs this way (one of them is enough), you should call. I think AJ is very likely and Axs is somewhat likely, so I think you should call (hit one outer if neccesary;))
Statistics: Posted by Stoneburg — Mon Nov 12, 2007 12:06 pm
]]>