You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.
You might need to refresh your page afterwards.
Comments
He can be bluffing with better hands than I have, he clearly doesnt want to check and face a raise from me - so he's tried to take my move away, done a really bad job of it, and if anything, encourage me to do exactly what he doesn't want me to do.
If I think he is bluffing, a raise should get through 100% of the time, unless we are deep enough for him to believe he still has fold equity, has me pegged on king high, and has the balls to call or re-shove all in on an insane bluff, in that case, vwp to him.
I wud feel sick if I made the call with king high for 3k into 59k and he showed me pocket 2's - one thing making the read, another thing acting on it, the latter being the easy bit.
Just raise, get him to fold, and muck the hand - simplez.
I have a hand from a long while ago, it's cash, but is similar to this hypothetical scenario - see if I can find it.
* Edit - lol! James, half way thru my initil reply, when I went back to re-read the question, It clicked! haha - made me laugh - and I admit it did make me alter my reply a tad to consider a call. lol busted, nice work.
I was always gonna say raise tho.
But when he leads out, I know he has no hand - but I prefer the raise to the call - as it shud fold out hands such as 22/33 which he wud also be bluffing with.
V different to the other hand, its even better when your opponent convinces himself his King high cud be good, it;s why Im convinced that raising people who you believe to be bluffing is better than calling them.
Its not gonna be easy playing a flop OOP in this standard of tournament.....
But I'm sure you would back yourself to do this, and feel more comfortable doing so than you would calling off your tourny pre with AK.
Its kind of fitting that you choose this one particular hand to show us ur point.. but it kind of contradics itself. Basically i got a problem with ur thoughts that its best to raise someone off a hand u believe them to be bluffing, even wen u have a hand with significant value to just call, in short this is likely to be less +EV than just calling for the times they re pop u, or call with winning hands. In the said hand it kind of highlights that you can never play a perfect game because you can never dictate the oppositions next decision.
Example hand: u have 5c, 8c or watever u wanna have, basically u only have a weak holding like 8hi on the river. if u played against villains hand face up that was J 4 & the board has come 2 7 10 10 K, and villain bets the river, by ur school of thought it would be optimal to fold right? (bcos villain is ahead) .... "WRONG"- u say with some swagger how u wud raise him off instantly and he has to pass Jack hi.. Perfect Play right?.... Wrong again, what about the times he leads J hi on the riv, u 'raise his bluff', but he re pops u all in and u cannot call and have u lost X amount of chips.
So basically u can never play perfect poker, cos opponents can be too random & unpredictable.. so to reiterate the likes of beaneh, yb, etc u have to play for the optimal/most +ev play available against your best assimillation of what the opponent will do- it can not always be the perfect decision.
I hope this makes sense to someone bt prob not.. fwiw i get ironed at NLHE lol
Hey hotpotato, alot of the jargon u use goes over my head, but will base my reply on the hypothetical hand in the 2nd paragraph.
In your hand, the other guy, is also playing absolutely perfect poker.
If 2 players play their hand, and read teir opponents hand to perfection, then who is gonna win? - whoever has the best hand each time.
If you run into a guy who has a perfect read on you, its a sick table draw, or bad table selection.
Perfection is possible, but obviously nobody is perfect, so just aim to get as close to 100% decisions right as you can.
Just the way u guys say things.
"ur thoughts that its best to raise someone off a hand u believe them to be bluffing, even wen u have a hand with significant value to just call, in short this is likely to be less +EV than just calling for the times they re pop u, or call with winning hands"
Does this mean raising someone when u think they r bluffing is bad, coz they might not be bluffing and call u and make u look like a muppet?
That wud be a mis-read and/or poor bet sizing (u havent bet enough, bet too much, or got involved deep in a hand with a guy who cant fold) - all 3 things u can control.
and if he has the ability to 3 bet or 3 bet shove on the river on a bluff - then he's a sh!t hot player who u shud avoid playing with where-ever possible. Shake his hand.
Ill say yet again, It's logical to try and play as close to perfect as u can, obviously u arent gonna get every decision right, but why not aim to?
dohh imo the hand that you posted actually shows why its a lot better to call in a lot of situations with weak s/d value rather than raise if you think your opponent is bluffing. The whole point of bluff raising is to get him to fold better hands than you have right? But obviously in the example you gave this wasnt gonna happen as this villain wasn't even folding worse hands. If your raise can never fold out any hands that beat you its not gonna be +EV (unless you can get enough calls from hands even weaker than yours but then it becomes a raise for value and not to bluff).
But basically if you have a bluff catcher against someone pretty bad I would just call down so they can continue when they don't have such a great hand as K-high with a gutshot.
I fancy my chances against ya, 9 more months ill be a 100nl reg as i promised 3 months ago.
Rub ya hands, lick ya lips a new fish is coming
I am similar to jj, just not as good go mainly on feel and if i think i can bluff someone of a better hand i will not hesitate