Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
- From: "CincinnatiKid" <a16b5@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:45:32 -0800
On Dec 18 2008 2:14 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
On Dec 18, 1:53 pm, "Ian Stuart" <spamsu...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:but
On Dec 18 2008 7:42 PM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
On Dec 18 2008 1:35 PM, Ian Stuart wrote:
On Dec 18 2008 7:11 PM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
On Dec 18 2008 1:06 PM, CincinnatiKid wrote:
On Dec 18 2008 12:52 PM, Wayne Vinson wrote:
I hate to think of a $2/5 game with stacks smaller than that
almostyou
see them every day. Being out of position means that this is
I'vecertainly purely a set-farming call, if you call. Of course,
Kingsonly
played against a few people whom I would not four-bet with
commonbut
I
don't know this guy and Mike does.
--
Will in New Haven
Generally agreed. I do think this class of opponents is more
re-raisethan
many think however - there are LOTS of people who will not
preflop and instead just call. Your kings are not a favorite if
fallsis
not
in their range obviously.
I would guess as much as 20-30% of the player population at 2/5
ininto
that category. Just a guess.
Wayne Vinson
http://cardsharp.org/
Wayne (dot) Vinson (at) gmail (dot) com
That seems like a gross overestimation to me. The 2/5 games I play
selectionare
horrible and I would expect AT to 3 bet as often as AA. Game
preflopis
vital.
I just think a good rule of thumb to follow is that folding KK
play.. Iin
a cash game to a bit more than a minraise is typically a bad
them.would
imagine it's a ~ev one too.
Don't get me wrong...there are certain situations where it would be
beneficial to fold the KK, but this just doesn't seem like one of
to
What about:
"...is a fairly regular player in this game....."
"He wouldn't bluff at a pot if his life depended on it...."
"..he knows I play solid cards in early position."
The only hand this guy would ever come over the top with in early
position is AA."
"I've seen him muck QQ in late position to a single raise."
"Plus, every time he gets a big hand he straightens up in his chair and
leans forward."
So we're 99.999% certain in our read that he has aces and yet you want
expectcall. The situation involves this specific player, not the joes you
toto find in another game with the same stakes.
The problem is you're not 99.999% sure he has Aces. The indisputable fact
is that he has exactly one hand that you're behind right now. Just one.
Folding is bad. There really is no argument that's gonna make any sense
the contrary. It just is what it is.
AA v KK happens. It does not happen often enough to lay down KK in a cash
game to a minraise. The situation really is that simplified.
It seems perfectly clear that Mike was 100% sure of his read. The
frequency with which AA comes up against KK is therefore irrelevent and
the only debate worth having is with Mike around the accuracy of his read..
Somone who is that sure of his read ought to know how many chips were
in the stacks. Unless one or both of us is awfully short for a 2/5
game it is worth calling thirty more dollars because you can make a
great deal of money off a set against someone who won't let go of
Aces. And most "rocks" are exactly the people who will open a vein and
bleed chips into a sewer when you beat their Aces.
I suspect that the skinflint who re-raised Mike had only another one
or two hundred in front of him, making Mike's fold correct, but that
will have to wait for Mike to answer.
--
Will in New Haven
If the opponent did only have that much left then the correct play would
be to put him all in.
_____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
- From: Will in New Haven
- Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
- References:
- Clueless players (mini BAHH)
- From: Irish Mike
- Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
- From: CincinnatiKid
- Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
- From: Will in New Haven
- Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
- From: Will in New Haven
- Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
- From: CincinnatiKid
- Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
- From: CincinnatiKid
- Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
- From: Ian Stuart
- Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
- From: CincinnatiKid
- Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
- From: Ian Stuart
- Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
- From: Will in New Haven
- Clueless players (mini BAHH)
- Prev by Date: Re: GOOD PLAY OR BAD PLAY ?
- Next by Date: Re: GOOD PLAY OR BAD PLAY ?
- Previous by thread: Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
- Next by thread: Re: Clueless players (mini BAHH)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading