i disagree strongly that GP's hand is never a flush here. why is it not? if GP will play TTT this way, why would he not play a flush this way at least good portion of the time as well?
i'm not sure i agree with durr that AA = AQ here. this would imply that krantz' range is {flush, air} and i think that's almost an insult to krantz. surely he is capable of value betting a hand better than TT but worse than a flush here; especially if, as everyone is saying, GP's line is "never a flush". problem is there are only really 3 hands that fit into that category. AA, KcKx, and QcJx. but these 3 hands are certainly possible.
i think the key part of this hand is that by calling turn, you MUST call river unimproved. if krantz thinks at all like i do, after he bluff c/r's turn and you call there's a 25k pot out there that he's not going to give up on with a bluff if he thinks you're capable of folding a big hand. and krantz is certainly the type of player who a) plays like this (imo) and b) is capable of this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Astyanax
I really don't want to say any more but do you really think Krantz builds the pot on the turn so he can shove-bluff the river to make him fold a set? This is not an ego match and I know the cash is relative but they are playing for 900 bbs effective. I don't think a bluff shove against a set is profitable or likely.
Remember if Taylor doesn't have a set, he either has a flush or Krantz is winning the way this hand is played out....
in response to this: it's incorrect to assume that krantz was c/r'ing turn with the plan of getting called (by a set) and pushing river. krantz surely knows that GP (probably, i assume most people would) folds a ton of big hands to the turn C/R. when krantz gets called....see my last paragraph above.
Last edited by EC10; 12-21-2007 at 05:18 PM.