Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeStarr
I know we would have to make a lot of assumptions, but we also have to make assumptions when we say if I raise the flop, that I will get the guy all in on the flop.
I don’t think this is ever going to happen. Maybe I’m wrong. But, I think if you raised the flop, OMC/sb jams all-in, MP re-shoves – you might fold bottom set. Which is why you didn’t raise the flop and were able to raise the turn with more comfort. Maybe you don’t fold flop, but you didn’t raise because you didn’t want to have to make that decision with MP being deep. I could be wrong. But you play a low variance style and this hand epitomizes it – for good or bad.
You perhaps lose max value in the long run as the good players posting here suggest. But you also lose less and that often is just as good for your win rate. (e.g. GG).
That combined with you play easiest game in the country, Lol, allows you to crush the game you play. You get MP calling the turn without odds and then must make a crying call on the river because the pot is huge.
You now know (on the turn) MP doesn’t have a set the way he played the hand and are never getting called by an all-in on the turn much less the river. You got max value from him.
I’m not criticizing your play at all. But, I think the takeaway here is there’s not much point in asking for math advice when the premise is always going to be within the context of low variance play.