4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,676
|
|
1. This line of thinking makes me more likely to call 3/4 or pot-sized bets on the flop with OESDs than FDs. Opponents with often shut down when a flush hits the board, denying your implied odds. I'm also less likely to call pre-flop raises with Axs or Kxs than with SCs, unless there are other callers in front of me already. Finally I occasionally limp or call raises with unsuited connectors 87+ in position because implied odds for straights are high.
2. I was a little surprised that two higher cards are only a 5:3 favorite over two lower cards. I don't have them memorized.
3. I think bluffing is more prevalent in online play, so I automatically adjust it upward a little. I think 10% is pretty accurate for my play, but it depends how you define big bet. If you mean all-in, or pot-committing bets, I'd say my bluff percentage is less than 10%. It's hard for me to say how the law should affect my decision-making, which is why I asked. I guess it should sway tough call/fold decisions toward calling, but I can't think of a practical way to apply the law.
4. Good reasoning and I'm getting better at taking active players behind me into account. Not to mention using the presence of active players to make squeeze plays.
5. I'm not sure I agree with his reasoning. He says that if you are willing to play for stacks with your trip K's then you're better off leading the river. But I think a lot of players will represent the flush on the river if you show weakness by checking, in which case c/c'ing or c/r'ing is better than leading. He says you don't have a read here, but with one, I'd c/r an aggressive player and bet 200-300 into a passive one.
|