Sefaje, on Friday, May 11th, 2007, 10:00 AM, said:
this post makes absolutely no sense.So you're check/raising when he bets, which pot commits you. How is this any better than just betting out? You're acting like checking will allow you to fold when you're beat, and it wont.Wrong --- he's a "solid" player, which means he is observant of those around him and plays accordingly. if Hero's image is LAGish, then villain won't just automuck QQ to a flop c-bet here. So there's a LOT of good news other than just collecting the pot on the flop. If the flop checks through, that's a disaster. Villain's range is fairly wide, and almost any turn card can be reasonably scary to us, especially a Q, J, T, or Ace. Also, since our image is LAG, we want to keep our hand looking as "bluffish" as possible. Checking the flop doesn't do that and fails to extract value from lower pairs and flush draws.What it comes down to, i think, is that you think villain is a magical player that will only invest another penny when WE bet when he has TT,33, or 22... and will ALWAYS bet when we're ahead of him if we check to him on the flop. and that just isn't reasonable at all.edit: by the way...SB/BB/Straddle = 1betpreflop raiser = 2betHero's re-raise = 3bet
Wrong.Villain is solid. villain doesnt raise to 25 from a straddle to 10, in a 2-5NL game unless he wants a pot builder for set value etc.. sometimes suited connectors work too.
Sefaje, on Friday, May 11th, 2007, 10:06 AM, said:
(post about villain having 33 and stacking hero)No. NO. results do NOT matter. most of the time people post hands they lost and you know this, stop trying to validate your terrible advice based on the results. saying youre right and everyone else is wrong is something id expect from someone who has no idea what a "range" is and has never read a poker strategy forum before.
Wrong. I stated my opinions before the results. To me results do matter because I know I dont put villain on QQ JJ here with such a weird preflop bet. and then smooth call of the raise.
Ganador, on Friday, May 11th, 2007, 10:48 AM, said:
Dear Royal, your above statements make no sesne, you say his raise, then smooth call of the re-raise suggests he has a smaller pair or suited connectors, YET you then suggest I check a not overly dangerous board, which he could easily check behind to draw to a flush, a striaght, (by your standards, 45 is not out of the question) or to hit his set. And if he does bet, I suppose i have to check raise, therefore committing myself, and having the same result as leading out except with LESS information. For the record, with a LAG style of play, when one straddles, gets a raise, and looks down at KK, this is a dream situation. So yes, he could be holding QQ or JJ and think that he is wayyyy ahead here, and hence play them in this manner. Basically i got unlucky that he hit a set, cause otherwise I am winning a very large pot here if he has QQ or JJ like he is supposed to. and the raise to 25 does in no way mean he doesnt have these hands, i play live 30-40 hours a week and see that raise from that hand time and time again.
Dear GanadorYour raise to 125 is weaksauce. I didnt bother to comment on that because i'm playing it now as is. And of course 4,5 is out of his range. I said his range is set value, or a big trap. I'm sure he thought he would get a few callers, look to flop a set or big draw with a juiced up pot. But then you re-raised to 125. theres a fair bit in the pot. ur laggy, he's got position. Why not make a loose call with low pocketsAnd, why would a tight player with QQ or JJ not want to re-raise a LAG player who straddles then raises? If you're really telling us the story on how it went down. My thought wuld be the "solid" player might put you on weak pockets, or A,x in which case QQ comes over the top.