|
|
For melinda27 and Ash256: This thread is almost 8 months old.
You should read the rest of the thread - it won't let you down.
The original post is a theoretical hand, which is used to illustrate an important concept of applying pressure on your opponent, etc. Like I said, read the entire thread, and also the doubleas blog link, to get the full experience.
 Originally Posted by melinda27
and his fondness for playing for stacks
Originally Posted by fnord
TAggy is playing for stacks, Fnord is not. Discuss.
It isn't that the villian is fond of, or tends to play for stacks, it is the fact that he is facing a difficult decision. If he decides to continue in the hand, it is implied that he will have to risk his entire stack to showdown. Fnord only had to risk 1/3 of his stack, to effectively put the villian all-in.
This leads me to my next question:
Is the threat of this play lost if hero is out of position? Is villian more likely to call since he can see how we act on the turn?
Originally Posted by fnord
So far we've gone forward with the assumption our TAgg feels he's playing for stacks if he continues with his hand. However, many weaker and some not so weak players will often just call the raise, check/ fold the turn, but attack any weakness. Or just check/ call it all the way. Really weak players will often call the flop bet (in for a penny, in for a pound) then get second thoughts once the turn hits.
Against a call, how often should be follow through on the turn?
This is where I get into huge trouble. The tendency is for my opponents to check/calldown with weak hands (i guess they think they are committed). Does anyone have any suggestions here? Give up more often than not?
|
Reply With Quote