|
here is the actual hand as played:
weaktight | Hand | 9As - $0.25/$0.50 No Limit Holdem
@ badgers, you're right. as i mentioned, normally i wouldnt even bother with this guy because he's got such a tight range. but i did in this hand, so once i saw the flop i wasn't going to open fold because the preflop call was -EV.
@ zilla, on the turn i am trying to represent a queen, which i feel he can hardly ever have, and build a pot to steal on the river (rather than necessarily taking it on the turn). a 5/3 is NEVER opening 77 except maybe on the button imo so i'm not worrying about that hand. and he may not even be opening AQ. if he is, thats 6 possible combos and i think he's betting the flop for value so much of the time. and its still outweighed by AA,KK,AK (which i'm assuming he checks on the flop as well, if he checks AQ for tptk) the rest of his range (anything thats not a queen) i think is making a hero call vs my line. one which someone so straightforward isnt going to make over 3 streets once the queen pairs. i agree the river is almost the worst bluffing card in the deck because i'm now repping so thin but what else can a straightforward villain think i have but 7x or Qx here without reads? it must look really hard for me to be 3barrel bluffing this board in villain's opinion. so if his range going to the river is:
AA(3)
KK(6)
QQ(1)
AK(12)
AQ(6)
JJ(6)
i was assuming, perhaps without sufficient reads, that he folds AA, KK, AK, JJ, or 27 combinations out of 34 (i doubt AQ is even in his opening range). even if he calls with AA and KK 100%, thats 16 combos he calls with and 18 he folds. still +EV based on my betsizing right? i made the play based on the assumption that he has AA and KK a huge amount of the time and is being pretty brave calling 3 barrels with it, even after the 7 on the river.
i'm not saying i'm right, or trying to "rebut" your responses. you guys are all far better at poker than i'll probably ever be. i'm just displaying my though process in the hand in the hope of getting told how to think better.
|