|
|
 Originally Posted by Keith
Unfortunately you cannot take the main overriding point of my first post, You have to post reads because it will affect the validity of any advice you are given.
You take offence because I classed you as a fish . GET OVER IT. everyone else at the table should be making reads and they will be seeing the same stuff. I posted the read of the table over one hand because you didn't post anything.Like it or lump it , if I landed on that table with that action thats how I'd classify everyone and then modify reads as time went by and hands on hud started to increase .
[IRONY]For someone who is so indignant about how people post, you should practice what you preach
Look who is throwing out all the insults !!! On many forums most of your posts in this thread would have been deleted.[/IRONY]
These ranges are a case of retrospectively including hands in ranges. 72 implies you think BTNs playing 100% vpip in this situation , its optimistic at best to think they call pre with 72, Q7o, god knows how he raises flop with 97dd or 8d7d since the 7D is a flop card and we have 8d in our hand, and many Kxdd, Jxdd, Txxx hands are probably calling flop cbet (including K2dd) rather than raising since they are not drawing to the nut flush.
The range you have is clearly unrealistic and with this action my read is its likely heavily weighted toward a set and most likely 88, 22 since QQ would probably 3bet pre to thin the field rather than going multiway.
Equilab made an error when I was working possible ranges, not a big deal your fighting over 2% Equity LOL.
Here you go
Flop Ranges;
UTG; QQ+,AQs+,KQs,AQo+ 8.9% EQ
BU; QQ,77,22,Q7s,Q2s,Q7o 61.5%
A8dd 29.6%
If UTG calls behind its fine, if we use implied odds that villain will call the .25c which is likely we can use pot odds of
$1.11 ; .35 = 3.17: 1
|
Reply With Quote