Imagine you have 22 seconds to act on riv

[byronkincaid]

you're saying that villain should check if he has quads cos hero might bluff or bet his big pairs. I think he almost never bluffs and will check back small pairs that he may possibly call with if you put in the big bluffy looking all in.

[byronkincaid]

Zeebo's Theorem - Nobody ever folded a full house.

Reasoning: Nobody is good enough to fold a monster. Most players aren't even good enough to fold a hand that looks like a monster but really isn't.

Application: There are two basic applications to this theory. The first is that if you put your opponent on a full house and you can beat them, don't be afraid to overbet/push the river. This is particularly true when there is three of a kind on the board. Players will call with an incredible range of full houses in that spot. It is true that some villain may fold 22 on a board with three aces. However, you have no way of knowing if they have 22 or TT so go ahead and felt them. You are losing value if you don't. And sometimes they'll call with 22 anyway.

The second thing to realize is to never try to bluff anyone off a full house. If you have 22 on a board with three Aces, don't expect to be able to push 66 off his hand.

This theorem also generally applies to any monster over monster situation, from straight flush over quads/FH/nut flush down to set over set.

Reliability: This is the most reliable theorem. Nearly 100%. Somebody will post and argue that it is actually 100%.

[MANTIS01]

you're saying that villain should check if he has quads cos hero might bluff or bet his big pairs. I think he almost never bluffs and will check back small pairs that he may possibly call with if you put in the big bluffy looking all in.

So you think hero is the type of player who doesn't vbet his big pairs, always gives up with his unpaired hands, and makes big all-in calls with small pairs? Some player.

[byronkincaid]

you're saying that villain should check if he has quads cos hero might bluff or bet his big pairs. I think he almost never bluffs and will check back small pairs that he may possibly call with if you put in the big bluffy looking all in.

So you think hero is the type of player who doesn't vbet his big pairs, always gives up with his unpaired hands, and makes big all-in calls with small pairs? Some player.

i really don't think this is a board that many people bluff, i didn't say anything about not betting big pairs you agree he calls with these? more chance of getting value by betting

there's the isildurrr overbetting river thing as well which tons has been written about recently and you might catch up on in 4 or 5 years

[Rupert]

FOLD CALL WHO CARES THIS SPOT COMES UP ONCE EVERY THREE YEARS.  WHY DOESNT EVERYONE FIX THEIR PREFLOP LEAKS FIRST LOL

edit: RANGE MERGE ZEEBO THEOREM HI GUYZ

[AlexMartin]

FOLD CALL WHO CARES THIS SPOT COMES UP ONCE EVERY THREE YEARS.  WHY DOESNT EVERYONE FIX THEIR PREFLOP LEAKS FIRST LOL

edit: RANGE MERGE ZEEBO THEOREM HI GUYZ

more importantly, are u the biggest staker in the worlds?

[Rupert]

i have trouble saying no

[Cf]

I think I probably go sigh wtf fold in this spot. I mean, this has to be a K. Surely? If he has the K he's seen us fire twice, but now think he needs to bet the river as we're gonna be checking behind so often here. Why would he make this bet with anything else except as a bluff? And if he hasn't got the K there's no reason why we might not have it (raise pre, fired 2 streets). And I don't see why he's put himself in this spot to bluff here.


Meh.

[buzzharvey22]

i think this is a fold to be honest

the way hero has played hand has represented a huge amount of strength to me, open from early, c-bet into multi-way pot, fire 2nd barrell on paired board

IMO this player would have to be crazy if he fancied bluffing his stack into the way hero has played hand, because essentialy everything he jams on river is a bluff unless its the K right?

[MANTIS01]

So lots of people are in favour of folding. Wp Zeebo you had a good run.

[AlexMartin]

Zeebo's Theorem - Nobody ever folded a full house.

Reasoning: Nobody is good enough to fold a monster. Most players aren't even good enough to fold a hand that looks like a monster but really isn't.

Application: There are two basic applications to this theory. The first is that if you put your opponent on a full house and you can beat them, don't be afraid to overbet/push the river. This is particularly true when there is three of a kind on the board. Players will call with an incredible range of full houses in that spot. It is true that some villain may fold 22 on a board with three aces. However, you have no way of knowing if they have 22 or TT so go ahead and felt them. You are losing value if you don't. And sometimes they'll call with 22 anyway.

The second thing to realize is to never try to bluff anyone off a full house. If you have 22 on a board with three Aces, don't expect to be able to push 66 off his hand.

This theorem also generally applies to any monster over monster situation, from straight flush over quads/FH/nut flush down to set over set.

Reliability: This is the most reliable theorem. Nearly 100%. Somebody will post and argue that it is actually 100%.

i did lol at this part. pretty incredibly naiive to think that ppl will never adapt/get better  wrt gt.

[byronkincaid]

What I do and recommend you do, is to gamble on whether or not my opponent is bluffing. What I hold isn't all that important; it only has to be able to beat a bluff. As I gain experience, I'm constantly being surprised by how often players bluff. Missed Flush draws are somewhat predictable of course (if only two of a suit is on the board, nobody has a Flush) and missed Straight draws are fairly evident as well. More difficult to determine is the bluff where your opponent holds second pair, but is representing top pair and you hold top pair with a poor kicker. As an example, let's say you have -5h and the flop is ,Js,7d. Your opponent bets into it and you raise. If he calls your raise, you have got to at least suspect he also has a King and, if he does, his kicker may be better than yours. But don't forget that he might be holding Q-J here and is hoping for either a J or Q to come on the turn, which is evidenced by the fact he didn't re-raise. Let's say the turn card is 10h. If he now bets into you, it could mean he has either made a Straight (from a hand of A-Q or Q-9), hit two-pair (from a hand like K-10 or J-10) or has a Straight draw (from a hand of J-Q). I would just call here, unless I had a lot of chips, in which case I'd raise in light of my Flush draw. Either move is a gamble, but I think it's a reasonable gamble. I still have top pair and, unless the river card makes my hand totally untenable, I'm going to call his river bet, assuming he makes one. Of course, if the river makes my Flush, he's getting it with both barrels, should he bet. Yes, he might have A-x of hearts, but that's a chance I'm willing to take. After all, I'm gambling, right?

[booder]

What I do and recommend you do, is to gamble on whether or not my opponent is bluffing. What I hold isn't all that important; it only has to be able to beat a bluff. As I gain experience, I'm constantly being surprised by how often players bluff. Missed Flush draws are somewhat predictable of course (if only two of a suit is on the board, nobody has a Flush) and missed Straight draws are fairly evident as well. More difficult to determine is the bluff where your opponent holds second pair, but is representing top pair and you hold top pair with a poor kicker. As an example, let's say you have -5h and the flop is ,Js,7d. Your opponent bets into it and you raise. If he calls your raise, you have got to at least suspect he also has a King and, if he does, his kicker may be better than yours. But don't forget that he might be holding Q-J here and is hoping for either a J or Q to come on the turn, which is evidenced by the fact he didn't re-raise. Let's say the turn card is 10h. If he now bets into you, it could mean he has either made a Straight (from a hand of A-Q or Q-9), hit two-pair (from a hand like K-10 or J-10) or has a Straight draw (from a hand of J-Q). I would just call here, unless I had a lot of chips, in which case I'd raise in light of my Flush draw. Either move is a gamble, but I think it's a reasonable gamble. I still have top pair and, unless the river card makes my hand totally untenable, I'm going to call his river bet, assuming he makes one. Of course, if the river makes my Flush, he's getting it with both barrels, should he bet. Yes, he might have A-x of hearts, but that's a chance I'm willing to take. After all, I'm gambling, right?

http://www.gamemasteronline.com/Archive/PokerSchool/PokerSchool-Lesson-18.shtml

[The_nun]

What I do and recommend you do, is to gamble on whether or not my opponent is bluffing. What I hold isn't all that important; it only has to be able to beat a bluff. As I gain experience, I'm constantly being surprised by how often players bluff. Missed Flush draws are somewhat predictable of course (if only two of a suit is on the board, nobody has a Flush) and missed Straight draws are fairly evident as well. More difficult to determine is the bluff where your opponent holds second pair, but is representing top pair and you hold top pair with a poor kicker. As an example, let's say you have -5h and the flop is ,Js,7d. Your opponent bets into it and you raise. If he calls your raise, you have got to at least suspect he also has a King and, if he does, his kicker may be better than yours. But don't forget that he might be holding Q-J here and is hoping for either a J or Q to come on the turn, which is evidenced by the fact he didn't re-raise. Let's say the turn card is 10h. If he now bets into you, it could mean he has either made a Straight (from a hand of A-Q or Q-9), hit two-pair (from a hand like K-10 or J-10) or has a Straight draw (from a hand of J-Q). I would just call here, unless I had a lot of chips, in which case I'd raise in light of my Flush draw. Either move is a gamble, but I think it's a reasonable gamble. I still have top pair and, unless the river card makes my hand totally untenable, I'm going to call his river bet, assuming he makes one. Of course, if the river makes my Flush, he's getting it with both barrels, should he bet. Yes, he might have A-x of hearts, but that's a chance I'm willing to take. After all, I'm gambling, right?
[/q


This is where i am going wrong, i just can not get all this info info into 22 seconds...FML

[NigDawG]

What I do and recommend you do, is to gamble on whether or not my opponent is bluffing. What I hold isn't all that important; it only has to be able to beat a bluff. As I gain experience, I'm constantly being surprised by how often players bluff. Missed Flush draws are somewhat predictable of course (if only two of a suit is on the board, nobody has a Flush) and missed Straight draws are fairly evident as well. More difficult to determine is the bluff where your opponent holds second pair, but is representing top pair and you hold top pair with a poor kicker. As an example, let's say you have -5h and the flop is ,Js,7d. Your opponent bets into it and you raise. If he calls your raise, you have got to at least suspect he also has a King and, if he does, his kicker may be better than yours. But don't forget that he might be holding Q-J here and is hoping for either a J or Q to come on the turn, which is evidenced by the fact he didn't re-raise. Let's say the turn card is 10h. If he now bets into you, it could mean he has either made a Straight (from a hand of A-Q or Q-9), hit two-pair (from a hand like K-10 or J-10) or has a Straight draw (from a hand of J-Q). I would just call here, unless I had a lot of chips, in which case I'd raise in light of my Flush draw. Either move is a gamble, but I think it's a reasonable gamble. I still have top pair and, unless the river card makes my hand totally untenable, I'm going to call his river bet, assuming he makes one. Of course, if the river makes my Flush, he's getting it with both barrels, should he bet. Yes, he might have A-x of hearts, but that's a chance I'm willing to take. After all, I'm gambling, right?

tl:dr