Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
KQ offsuit from BB KQ offsuit from BB

07-24-2016 , 06:31 PM
i still think that's wrong. Basically the subset of hands that he calls us with and wins in my example are hands that we are check calling ourselves. So betting and losing is no less profitable than check calling.

Let's say we bet KK 100 times on the Q953A board and 90 times we get called by Ax and 10 times we get called by worse. If he's betting Ax 100% when. He led to this is a profitable bet despite only winning 10% of time once called
KQ offsuit from BB Quote
07-24-2016 , 08:13 PM
If after betting and getting called in a particular spot, we win 10% of the time and lose 90% it's not a profitable* bet. We may lose less than by check calling, so it could be the better option (which is your point) In the extreme case when he never bluffs, c/f would be better. Our options are to lose 1BB, .8BB, 0BB in that case.


* In the strict sense of producing a profit in itself.
KQ offsuit from BB Quote
07-26-2016 , 09:02 PM
50% win when called refers to value betting in position.
KQ offsuit from BB Quote
07-31-2016 , 07:43 PM
OP, love your username. Judge Landis unfairly pulled you out of the 1934 World Series.
KQ offsuit from BB Quote
08-01-2016 , 01:20 AM
i just do not see why OP bet the flop.
KQ offsuit from BB Quote
08-01-2016 , 08:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Montrealcorp
i just do not see why OP bet the flop.
+1

I'd check the flop.
KQ offsuit from BB Quote
08-01-2016 , 11:47 AM
Yes, I think betting into that many players on the flop was a mistake. If there were less opponents I like it, but there were too many.

lawdude, I agree with what you said. That damned Judge Landis! What does he know about baseball, anyway. ;-)
KQ offsuit from BB Quote

      
m