|
I wasn't saying that that particular player was, in fact, a fish. I was simply making the case that if he was a fish, the fold was bad.
I also stated that if he is a cognitive player you can make the case for the fold.
Your response was simply that he wasn't a fish but a cognitive player becuase Zeppe posted no reads. I can agree that if the man knows what he's doing, then you have a decent case for a fold. I can't recall many players that I *noted as a "SHARK" that would push here losing to the ace high flush.
To lay the argument to sleep: The call is based soley on the opponent, I said it was a mistake to fold (assuming he was a fish) you said it was a mistake to call (assuming he was a shark)
Fish: Will push with two pair, a set, a straight, a baby flush, a straight flush commonly. (I've seen it, I've experienced it, I love it)
Cognitive player: Will push with King high flush rarely, the nut straight rarely and the straight flush more commonly.
Shark: Will push with the straight flush. However, I doubt a player of this high calibur is still playing the low limits. Though it is possible.
If I saw him playing well, I'd be very nervous about making the call. But if he's like most of the low blinds NL community, my worries are curbed some.
Basically it comes down to how much credit we like to give our opponents. I make no assumptions until I see them do something wrong or right. 2/3rds of the players I see do a lot more wrong than right.
-'rilla
*reguards to my player notes.
Also note, I'm very proud of my ego. I enjoy it's company emensly and think it makes me look very attractive.
|