blonde poker forum

The villain is unknown to me, one of those hard-to-tell youngish players that could very well be a pro, but also could not. Sometimes it's quite hard to tell until you've seen them play a bit. Certainly didn't give anything anyway during the key moments.

I raise Kd Qd utg to £12 at 1/3. Villain (cutoff) is the only caller.

Qs 9s 6s I cbet £19. Even this is interesting. Thoughts on having this hand as part of our check call range? Villain tanks for a while and calls.

Kh I check (pros and cons?)

3c I bet £45, he thinks for 10 seconds then raises to £142. Thoughts?

It's a kind of unusual line for me to take, but also from him. Flame away!

Bet the turn, check behind a lot of rivers like this particular 1. It's really hard 2 say, without having any reads. When he raises the river, it does look a bit fos , in saying that how many players are bluffing in this particular spot or value raising worse. I guess with player tendencies we are just beat. But the lack of turn bet for protection / value is really interesting

If this were me (and let's all take a minute to be grateful that it isn't), I would think his most likely holding is something like  Aspades  7d, so strong enough to call in position pre, but not strong enough to raise, a nice flop to flat in position, happy to check the turn and need to raise to win on the end.

I would expect significant draws that don't include the ace blocker to be more aggressive, if he wants to rely on the value from the flush draw, if that makes sense. With the  Ks as villain, you'd definitely bet the turn, wouldn't you? Assuming stack sizes are irrelevant, this feels like

 Aspades 7d >  Aspades Ts >  3d 3h

If memory serves, what normally happens now is everyone stops laughing and one person very patiently explains how many shades of wrong I am.

A7o folds pre and 33 folds the flop. Any live reads Al? Really can't see him taking this line as a bluff and can't think of too many value hands that we beat.

how much behind? all in?

Interesting. Think I'd do that at least half the time, but I'd call sometimes in both against a perceived loose aggressive (are we still allowed to use that expression in 2015?) player. Alex is going to open UTG with hands that are behind A7 and he'll CBet a lot, so calling with a pair for one bet and hoping to see a check on the turn is definitely in my mind as an option.

I'm not saying this is how Doug Polk plays the hand, but a local rec, for example, could easily have them in their range.

I would :D

i would fold JJ on the flop and AT and maybe AJ pre flop

You don't combat loose aggro players by calling with hands that are often dominated and don't flop well (A7)

Nor do u do it by playing guessing games on the flop where said player is likely to put pressure on future streets (33)

No. But people do. You know, people who pretend to know what they're doing and are convinced they can beat 1-3 games and can outplay the opponent down the streets. We...er they see a bet-check-bet and decide to get creative with the nut blocker in their hand.

With the threes, there's no other way to play the hand but call or fold on the flop. Sometimes you fold, sure. But call one bet, get lucky with a check on the turn and get super lucky on the river. Fold when Pleno 3betjams. Post hand on PHA. Cry.

I think checking the flop is better than betting flop/checking turn, once we cbet then check the turn I feel like we just either have nothing and fold or have something we're trying to pot control with, not that i dont think you'd be capable of checking very strong hand there OTT, just that I think a competent unknown villain could probably make that assumption fairly profitably in such a spot.

Going to call this river, fuck people and stupid lines and you have a hand that is quite good. He probably has JT mind.

The way the board has run out, seems like a bet-bet-bet line. Or bet-bet-chk/call.

Can't see a reason to check the turn as I would bet all my Ace of spades hands.

A con of checking the turn is that villian can play his bluff range and value range the same. Which puts us in tough spots on the river because you very rarely have a flush here.

could just stick this in his eye for another 400+

fuck these guys and there stupid lines :D

i'm happy to protect the flop against 22sx, why let him see 13 outs.

i don't think we can call the river, but that doesn't mean we should necessarily fold.

yes betting flop best.

I think we can call the end

Jamming the river is pretty suicidal isn't it? No blockers and rep nothing. Think he will find a call with anything that he's raising for value with.

I called and to my real surprise he had 96s for flopped two pair.

its a turn card we will be c/deciding on and and can def include axss in that. its nice to slowly the nuts occasionally in almost every spot (unless against a passive fish) so you can jam rivers like this imo

I don't mind check-calling the flop and I don't mind betting it either. Probably use a mixed strategy.

As played, I'd bet the turn. Value, protection etc. I could be convinced of the merits of checking though.

IMO hero has the wrong sort of hand to turn into a bluff with a river 3bet. Partly because he has no blockers to the main parts of villain's range that beat us (i.e. flushes and the straight). But mainly because hero is high up enough in his range to call. So I would call, barring any in-game read.

At first glance, I thought that I kind of liked using hands such as Ks Jc or Qd Jd as c/r bluffs here - ofc hero may well not have stuff like KJo in his preflop range, but you know what I mean...

Tbh though, hero is not especially likely to get a better hand to fold. Maybe on a good day JT might fold... but in that case having a J or a T blocker is actually a bad thing ofc.

Maybe use  Aspades Qd etc as a river 3bet bluff... although are you betting that for value on the river in the first place?

in live games just calling when young guys do weird stuff that doesn't make sense, betting good hands when you have them and having nothing in you river 3b/bluffing range is the way id go about things :)

 ;sark; ;sark;