cheetaking

My thinking is that I bet the flop after pf raising, so he could very well think I'm just making a continuation bet. Now if I raise on a scare card on the turn, it looks extremely defensive. It does not look like I have anything that can call a re-raise, so I think he very well might read a mid-strength hand on my part and try to force me out with some kind of semi-bluff. By flat calling, I have to have something in order to do it, which will make him think twice about bluffing the next street. That's what I was thinking anyway. Again, all of this is just IMO. I am the one asking the question,

I don't think I agree with you about raising on the turn.Consider this: If I re-raise on the turn, any number of hands from a set of 8's to a full house, to a mere semi-bluff flush draw are going to push all-in over the top, a bet which would definitely force me to fold. If I flat call, now the draws and the trip 8's are likely checking the river, and made hands are probably betting half the pot again, which means that I actually get more information about his hand by flat calling. Also, If I'm going to throw away $10 by re-raising, and he's probably betting half the pot (also $10) on the rive

Thanks, everyone. I especially found jmbreslin's post to be interesting, as that is kinda why I was considering calling, because I really didn't think that any hand would make that huge of a bet as a value bet.Here's what actually happened:At the time, I was kind of on tilt after taking a couple of tough beats, and then moreso for not getting an ounce of action with pocket kings in the previous hand (yes, I had them 2 hands in a row...,) so at the time I had not even considered the possibility of a full house betting for value, and had reasoned that the odds of him making such a huge bet with

Some good insights so far. I don't know if I want to put him on as wide a range as some people have been suggesting, though. He did fold from the big blind in the previous hand, so I think it's somewhat safe to say that he's probably not a total donk, and narrow his range at least a bit.

This hand just happened over on AbsolutePoker, and it was a really tough decision, so I want to know what everyone thinks the proper course of action would have been.GAME:AbsolutePoker Game #1494260071, No Limit Hold'em (.25/.50 NL)8 players at tableSeat 6 - SB (Villain) ($49 in chips)Seat 1 - (UTG+2) Cheetaking ($35.65 in chips)READS: I know absolutely nothing about Villain, and he knows nothing about me. He just sat down at the table 1 hand ago, and hasn't played a hand past the flop yet.Villain - Posts small blind $0.25BB - Posts big blind $0.50*** POCKET CARDS ***Dealt to Cheetaking [K K

SB: A/5MP: A/Q

Anyone else?I don't mean to pester, but I did only get one reply...

If you know he's continuation betting, and then he bet a big amount out-of-turn on a blank, why are you worried? That screams bluff. I personally probably wouldn't have the guts to call, but I do think you've got him beat here. I'd day shove, let him call with a crap hand, and hope that he doesn't catch a miracle on the river.

SB has bet every street out-of-position, so I really doubt that queen helped him. I'm putting him on either something like A/5, or a donked up overpair. It's almost certain that you've got him beat. If he was the only player you were against, I would say stick in a mini re-raise, which should incite a call from a lower boat.However, since there are 2 players in the hand, MP has flat-called twice, and he seems to be quite loose, you have to be genuinely worried about him. Because you didn't stick in a raise on either of the two earlier streets, you have almost no info on him. Him having a queen

I don't think the call was a bad play at all. The only hand that's beating you is a draw, so why not flat call and wait to see the turn before committing more chips? I might call here too and wait for the turn to come a high card that's not a heart. If it is a heart, and the action gets crazy, drop it. If it's a high card, bet the farm and bust someone.Aside from that, what more do you want? You got all your money in with a 70/30 advantage, and caught a guy semi-bluffing. I don't see anything wrong with that. As long as you've got the bankroll to absorb a bust if it doesn't go your way

This hand came up tonight while playing .25/.50 PL Hold'em on Pokerstars.READ INFO:-Villain is 32/18/2 with 63 hands. He has been betting a lot, especially on the turn and the river when scare cards come up, and has clearly made continuation bets, so he seems to be very aggressive. He got re-raised a few times and dropped, so that furthers my suspicions. Also, one time he raised pre-flop and then showed an 8/9 down at the end of the hand. He has also slow-played a flopped set once, though, so he's also capable of that.-Hero has seen around 25% of the flops so far, and I have played very aggres

Actually, fast tables really aren't that much faster than normal ones. It's like 60 hands/hr versus 50.And the forementioned stats were mostly at .25/.50

At the .05/.10 level, two tables is definitely optimal. Because at those stakes, people are mostly stupid, and you make the most money by playing good solid tight/aggressive poker. So if you are only playing one table, you'll get bored fast waiting for good hands.However, once you step up into the dollar levels, I'm going to go against the grain and say stick with one table if that's what you're comfortable with.Personally, I have found that I win a LOT more playing one table because I have much better reads on everyone, and can focus on each and every decision with no pressure. This lets me p

No, it is much less effective in micro-NL. Small-ball is better suited for games where everyone is playing tight/aggressive at least to some degree, because those players are easier to put on hands, and more likely to be paying attention to the hands you play, which is what makes small-ball effective. From personal experience, basic tight/aggressive is best for when a table is really loose, and then switching to small-ball is the way to go once the table tightens up and you've had time to study everyone's play.

Hello, everyone.I have been a No Limit Hold'em player for as long as I can remember, but then recently while I was playing in a few HORSE tournaments for fun, I discovered that I was doing much better at Stud than Hold'em. So I have decided to give the Stud cash games on PokerStars a try, but I have no idea what an appropriate bankroll would be.I know in NLHE it's generally 10 buy-ins, but what should it be in Stud? I've never really tried playing a limit game for anything but sheer entertainment before, so I'm clueless. I have about $55 in my bankroll at the moment. Is this enough for the .25