You are like the guy who says "I knew you were bluffing" after the hand is shown. Had the outcome been a bluff or lesser two would you have posted this? Why not before the results were given if you were so sure?
Quote:
you can't just say it "felt" like one of his bluffs and then go with that.
Why not? No limit is all about the read. Online diminishes that dramatically, but in the end most difficult hands come down to the read. Sometimes you know or have a good idea, and more often when playing shorthanded. That's all Diablo was saying about my "simple" answer. I left all that out in my post, because it is obvious and the thread needed a rant.
Quote:
mahatma actually does try to put his opponents on hands and you should too.
You missed the point. In the example, putting him on a hand does not matter. If that is not clear, state your case that you can know his hand holdings precisely enough for me to be wrong. I contend AK in that hand exceeds the calling threshold shorthanded vs any highly aggressive player who bluffs the river hard and habitually. Simple after I say it maybe. If you have a read to the contrary so be it, but that caveat is always present in no limit and should not have to be spelled out in every post.
Quote:
your first post saying "you have top two, you should call" essentially doesn't make any sense, it isn't high level poker, and we've already gone over the reasons why that's the case.
If the above doesn't convince you, at least put pencil to paper and run some hands out. The key point is he has vastly more opportunities to bluff than to bet a monster.
Quote:
i put him on a bluff in this situation much much less often than you seem to, and no i don't play the 50-100 but yes i have put in many hours watching the game because i hope to be playing it soon.
If you assume a random hand at that point and pick a bluff percentage below (betsize/total potsize after call) we get different answers. (Start > Programs > Accessories > Calculator................................Ruh Roh.)
Matt