Quote:
Originally Posted by chillrob
Might want to try reading the action in the hand correctly before you criticize others' hand-reading.
What? You mean BB calling instead of 3-betting? It makes no difference in the description of the thought process. In fact, it probably increases the probability that it would happen as players like 3-betting from BB even less than they like open-raising.
Quote:
Of course there is a slight chance the guy is a spaz and could be doing this with a worse hand.
What's I'm describing is not spazzing. It's logical (though wrong) play by a somewhat timid player. The pattern I've described is not something I'm making up. Some players actually think this way. They even tell you that after you get to know them. ("I don't like raising QQ preflop because I'd rather see a safe flop before getting invested.") The flop check-call is just an extension of that idea.
Quote:
And even in one of the very rare cases that we have the aggressor beat, we may not have the 3rd guy beat.
What hand range are you giving the third player? This is sounding very MUBS-y. While it's true you might not have the third guy beat, it's far more likely that you do.
This is about probability, not possibility.
Quote:
I have played hands similar to this before where I decided to pay off the spaz but was beaten by the third player.
I'm sure you have, because I have them, too. I would like to suggest that you're falling victim to the availability heuristic, which is that your ability to remember the times that third player had you beat is outweighing all the times that you've gotten overcalled by some random donk hand. Yes, we've all seen times that some guy called down with the nuts and never once bet it. But how often do you think the third guy calling down only has a straight or better? There's way more junk he could have been hanging around with. For all you know, he's calling with A-high because he doesn't want to get bluffed out of a big pot when he's got the nut-kicker.
Quote:
It would be very silly not to bet the turn when you most likely have the best hand but it is vulnerable and there are two other players drawing to beat it. Playing a hand as a bluff-catcher only makes sense in a headsup pot. But after someone shows such strength, you have more info; you have to use the info.
This is sounding typical weak-tight from back in the early/mid 2000s live poker scene (back in the day when Winning Low Limit Hold'em by Lee Jones was somewhat fresh).They only ever check-raise the turn with the nuts... except when they don't have it, but you never find out because you're always folding.