Question of the Day 21/08

[Garth Kay]

The only reason you would call is for betting knowledge.

If he has played top set weakly, or bottom set horribly. You would like to find out.

If he has played AK or other top 15% hands this way as well.

The power of information, by pushing all in over the top gives him the options of folding and mucking the cards, or calling and seeing your cards and pushing his into the muck.

So call is more of an information bet than anything in this hand.

There is a good chance he will snap call an all in shove with a set or top two here anyway. So you achieve maximum value and you get the information you need.

In a live setting, even if he does muck his hand, you still have the knowledge that he will call an all in river better bet with a marginal hand on a straightening board. You have to think if he calls here and folds then he is only calling with two pair or better, at worst an overpair. That's still decent inferred information.

[bennymacca]

yeah if he calls and then can't beat a straight, you have pretty much narrowed his range down to sets and 2 pair type hands anyway. so you still get the information you want.

[Bacon]

the old 'cluedo' play

[AJG]

Of course benny the cunt, ALK can give his opinion on the hand, thats my point, its a discussion and opinions shouldnt be labeled as ludicrous is all. And no I dont expect positive comments on my posts, just dont expect negative ones... I only mentioned a flat in a specific situation, not as the best general play.
Brett also gave valid reasons for a flat?

Yes Garth, thats a snip of what you wrote in villain's thinking on the river. I also am sometimes more suspicious of smaller bets (opponent dependant), as you say, screaming "CALL ME". But most players I think would bet out more if they were trying to induce a fold... So benny the cunt, I wasnt meaning the raise was small as a steal, but the original bet.
Edit: I wasnt meaning you said anything was ludicrous Garth.

[bennymacca]

So benny the cunt, I wasnt meaning the raise was small as a steal, but the original bet.

read the hand again. the villain check raises us, putting us to a decision. so there is no "original bet." at no points does the villain make any action until the check raise.

[Bacon]

So benny the cunt, I wasnt meaning the raise was small as a steal, but the original bet.

read the hand again. the villain check raises us, putting us to a decision. so there is no "original bet." at no points does the villain make any action until the check raise.

I think AJG was looking at the villian's POV, and our $25 bet

[maccatak11]

the thing that hasn't been mentioned yet is the fact that this is a full ring game. Would a 'decent but loose' player limp from UTG with 10 7 in a full ring game? Much more likely in 6-max, but im thinking low set here, or two pair from suited connectors.

Im triple fist pump all-inning here.

[AJG]

....
The river comes [8h]. He checks. You bet $25 and he raises to $80.

That reads like a bet to me?

Yes, I understand the chk-raise could be a steal, I was commentint on Garth's post saying villains thinking was 'He bet on the river ... He's trying to take the pot right here", that 25 was kinda small for this.

Edit: What bacon said

[Bacon]

....
The river comes [8h]. He checks. You bet $25 and he raises to $80.

That reads like a bet to me?

Yes, I understand the chk-raise could be a steal, I was commentint on Garth's post saying villains thinking was 'He bet on the river ... He's trying to take the pot right here", that 25 was kinda small for this.

Edit: What bacon said

$25 was a 1/2 pot bet. I may use that if I was 85% sure I could steal, but still a bit worried.

[AJG]

Yeah, but given he called the flop bet, and turn is a brick, river makes 4 cards to a straight, I just think 1/2 pot is a bit small for a bluff...