darbday;207372 wrotemy lady,
see underlined: bad read you. ;)
darbday;207372 wrotei don't think i was talking about the villian has him crushed preflop....
darbday;206987 wroteso buddy has you crushed preflop
orlyowl.jpg
darbday;207372 wrotei think you mean about 2nd best hand and that is talking about post flop, he hit a hand but there are many that could beat it, he hasn't narrowed the field at all and hes just guessing. but im just noting i wasn't talking pf.
"Just guessing" as contrasted to super-users who 100% know? What the hell do you think poker is? Of all the hands in the villian's range..On 10/9s+ qjo+ 22+ there are like 10 hands that beat us, not "many"
So villian is winning 10/200 (off the top of my head) when the flop is checked to hero, we know that.
Hero bets, and gets minraised...hmm time to narrow some more, noting:
Check/min-raising is pretty lame..this opponent officially sucks at poker.. now what has he got here?
Those 10 are still in the mix, overs with Ad or Kd are pretty gay to check min raise, but villian sucks balls as we've established...I'm not prepared to rule them out..just to lesson the incidence, sets make a lot of sense here, overpairs with a diamond, even over pairs in general... I again lower the incidence of qq with or without qd, as people never limp it pf. I could go on..but I'm bored and you get the gist.
So we've narrowed villain's range again..and your claim that Wetts "hasn't narrowed the field" and is "just guessing" continues to be wrong.
The best way to get more chips into this pot is to call the min-raise, and upon doing that..the rest of the hand plays itself. Let's give ourselves at least 30 villain-hands that make sense (I think it is higher, but I'm spotting you for the turn bet which again narrows the villian's range.. we'll err in your favour) so 30/40 we're winning our call makes the pot 17k-ish (and yes, when we're this far ahead we want more chips in. NOT a debate) we've got 23k back and go broke on the turn. So be it.
This is fine play against the nittiest must unrealistic villain-range. Start throwing in the "Harrington 10%" (you did mention 'm') after all that or some straight up bad play for draws and this becomes a complete no brainer.
darbday;207372 wrote
I strive not to put myself in this predicament....as for the villian he has 90M right? If thats right then he can play these pots if he believes he has better post flop play, but id like to hear whether wetts thought he was good or bad and what this guy placed. either way wetts could do well with straightforward poker at this point so why risk all in with less than the nuts.
I'm hanging out with my fam and have been idly attacking this in the moments inbetween..but even half-assed this hand is ez game. Waiting for the nuts, or limiting yourself to ABC poker (as you suggested) is donktastic.
Work on your self-confidence and handling edges better.
darbday;207372 wrote
yes you were wearing panties, 81/19
Another bad read by you, I wasn't- then or now. ;)