Is call/re-raise the strongest betting pattern?

I've been thinking about betting patterns a bit and think that a call followed by a re-raise (often over the top) by the same player in the same round of betting is the surest sign they have a very strong hand. Hence that bet should be given a huge call gap.

Comments?

I've been thinking about betting patterns a bit and think that a call followed by a re-raise (often over the top) by the same player in the same round of betting is the surest sign they have a very strong hand. Hence that bet should be given a huge call gap.

Comments?

I've been thinking about betting patterns a bit and think that a call followed by a re-raise (often over the top) by the same player in the same round of betting is the surest sign they have a very strong hand. Hence that bet should be given a huge call gap.

Comments?

I've been thinking about betting patterns a bit and think that a call followed by a re-raise (often over the top) by the same player in the same round of betting is the surest sign they have a very strong hand. Hence that bet should be given a huge call gap.

Comments?

I've been thinking about betting patterns a bit and think that a call followed by a re-raise (often over the top) by the same player in the same round of betting is the surest sign they have a very strong hand. Hence that bet should be given a huge call gap.

Comments?

I've been thinking about betting patterns a bit and think that a call followed by a re-raise (often over the top) by the same player in the same round of betting is the surest sign they have a very strong hand. Hence that bet should be given a huge call gap.

Comments?

They could always be bluffing. but what you said makes sense.

They could always be bluffing. but what you said makes sense.

They could always be bluffing. but what you said makes sense.

They could always be bluffing. but what you said makes sense.

They could always be bluffing. but what you said makes sense.

They could always be bluffing. but what you said makes sense.

Originally Posted by !Luck

They could always be bluffing. but what you said makes sense.

Unless you have solid, reliable historical information that someone consistently bluffs, you should not assume someone is bluffing.

Originally Posted by !Luck

They could always be bluffing. but what you said makes sense.

Unless you have solid, reliable historical information that someone consistently bluffs, you should not assume someone is bluffing.

Originally Posted by !Luck

They could always be bluffing. but what you said makes sense.

Unless you have solid, reliable historical information that someone consistently bluffs, you should not assume someone is bluffing.

Originally Posted by !Luck

They could always be bluffing. but what you said makes sense.

Unless you have solid, reliable historical information that someone consistently bluffs, you should not assume someone is bluffing.

Originally Posted by !Luck

They could always be bluffing. but what you said makes sense.

Unless you have solid, reliable historical information that someone consistently bluffs, you should not assume someone is bluffing.

Originally Posted by !Luck

They could always be bluffing. but what you said makes sense.

Unless you have solid, reliable historical information that someone consistently bluffs, you should not assume someone is bluffing.

Originally Posted by !Luck

They could always be bluffing. but what you said makes sense.

Anything could be a bluff. Trick is what is likely to be a bluff and what isn't.

In this case Re-raising as a bluff is pretty suicidal, particularly in NL against a weak player (since they are not likely capable of laying down a marginal hand) and/or into mulitple players.

Originally Posted by !Luck

They could always be bluffing. but what you said makes sense.

Anything could be a bluff. Trick is what is likely to be a bluff and what isn't.

In this case Re-raising as a bluff is pretty suicidal, particularly in NL against a weak player (since they are not likely capable of laying down a marginal hand) and/or into mulitple players.

Originally Posted by !Luck

They could always be bluffing. but what you said makes sense.

Anything could be a bluff. Trick is what is likely to be a bluff and what isn't.

In this case Re-raising as a bluff is pretty suicidal, particularly in NL against a weak player (since they are not likely capable of laying down a marginal hand) and/or into mulitple players.

Originally Posted by !Luck

They could always be bluffing. but what you said makes sense.

Anything could be a bluff. Trick is what is likely to be a bluff and what isn't.

In this case Re-raising as a bluff is pretty suicidal, particularly in NL against a weak player (since they are not likely capable of laying down a marginal hand) and/or into mulitple players.

Originally Posted by !Luck

They could always be bluffing. but what you said makes sense.

Anything could be a bluff. Trick is what is likely to be a bluff and what isn't.

In this case Re-raising as a bluff is pretty suicidal, particularly in NL against a weak player (since they are not likely capable of laying down a marginal hand) and/or into mulitple players.

Originally Posted by !Luck

They could always be bluffing. but what you said makes sense.

Anything could be a bluff. Trick is what is likely to be a bluff and what isn't.

In this case Re-raising as a bluff is pretty suicidal, particularly in NL against a weak player (since they are not likely capable of laying down a marginal hand) and/or into mulitple players.

Originally Posted by Xianti

Unless you have solid, reliable historical information that someone consistently bluffs, you should not assume someone is bluffing.

Disagree. Considers this.

You and another player are heads-up on on a $20 pot and he's on a short stack. River brings up a potential flush. You check, he bets his last $5. Do you call?

You can make this call, be wrong most of the time and still come out ahead! You need a greater than 1 in 5 chance of winning showdown to call.

However, if he had $10 left and bet it all you would need a greater than 1 in 3 chance of winning showdown to make the call.

It's good to be the taller stack...

Another reason it's good to be the tall stack. Lets say you're on the same $20 pot and both have $15 of chips left. Possible flush comes on the turn. You check, he bets $5. Now it gets more complicated. If he has the flush, you may end up having to pay up to another $10 to see it. Also you need to consider the odds the river will give you a hand better than his flush or give his hand a better non-flush hand than yours. A much stronger case for a lay-down. The threat of another $10 to see showdown allows the tall stack to make a stronger bluff without putting as many chips at immediate risk.

Also, consider the flip side. Assuming the bluffer would always lose showdown, the bluff only needs to be successful greater than 1 in 4 times to be profitable. Both of you can make the wrong move most of the time and still be profitable. Fun game, eh?

To parphrase Caro:
If you're not catching bluffs, you're not calling enough.
If you're not caught bluffing, you're not bluffing enough.

Originally Posted by Xianti

Unless you have solid, reliable historical information that someone consistently bluffs, you should not assume someone is bluffing.

Disagree. Considers this.

You and another player are heads-up on on a $20 pot and he's on a short stack. River brings up a potential flush. You check, he bets his last $5. Do you call?

You can make this call, be wrong most of the time and still come out ahead! You need a greater than 1 in 5 chance of winning showdown to call.

However, if he had $10 left and bet it all you would need a greater than 1 in 3 chance of winning showdown to make the call.

It's good to be the taller stack...

Another reason it's good to be the tall stack. Lets say you're on the same $20 pot and both have $15 of chips left. Possible flush comes on the turn. You check, he bets $5. Now it gets more complicated. If he has the flush, you may end up having to pay up to another $10 to see it. Also you need to consider the odds the river will give you a hand better than his flush or give his hand a better non-flush hand than yours. A much stronger case for a lay-down. The threat of another $10 to see showdown allows the tall stack to make a stronger bluff without putting as many chips at immediate risk.

Also, consider the flip side. Assuming the bluffer would always lose showdown, the bluff only needs to be successful greater than 1 in 4 times to be profitable. Both of you can make the wrong move most of the time and still be profitable. Fun game, eh?

To parphrase Caro:
If you're not catching bluffs, you're not calling enough.
If you're not caught bluffing, you're not bluffing enough.

Originally Posted by Xianti

Unless you have solid, reliable historical information that someone consistently bluffs, you should not assume someone is bluffing.

Disagree. Considers this.

You and another player are heads-up on on a $20 pot and he's on a short stack. River brings up a potential flush. You check, he bets his last $5. Do you call?

You can make this call, be wrong most of the time and still come out ahead! You need a greater than 1 in 5 chance of winning showdown to call.

However, if he had $10 left and bet it all you would need a greater than 1 in 3 chance of winning showdown to make the call.

It's good to be the taller stack...

Another reason it's good to be the tall stack. Lets say you're on the same $20 pot and both have $15 of chips left. Possible flush comes on the turn. You check, he bets $5. Now it gets more complicated. If he has the flush, you may end up having to pay up to another $10 to see it. Also you need to consider the odds the river will give you a hand better than his flush or give his hand a better non-flush hand than yours. A much stronger case for a lay-down. The threat of another $10 to see showdown allows the tall stack to make a stronger bluff without putting as many chips at immediate risk.

Also, consider the flip side. Assuming the bluffer would always lose showdown, the bluff only needs to be successful greater than 1 in 4 times to be profitable. Both of you can make the wrong move most of the time and still be profitable. Fun game, eh?

To parphrase Caro:
If you're not catching bluffs, you're not calling enough.
If you're not caught bluffing, you're not bluffing enough.

Originally Posted by Xianti

Unless you have solid, reliable historical information that someone consistently bluffs, you should not assume someone is bluffing.

Disagree. Considers this.

You and another player are heads-up on on a $20 pot and he's on a short stack. River brings up a potential flush. You check, he bets his last $5. Do you call?

You can make this call, be wrong most of the time and still come out ahead! You need a greater than 1 in 5 chance of winning showdown to call.

However, if he had $10 left and bet it all you would need a greater than 1 in 3 chance of winning showdown to make the call.

It's good to be the taller stack...

Another reason it's good to be the tall stack. Lets say you're on the same $20 pot and both have $15 of chips left. Possible flush comes on the turn. You check, he bets $5. Now it gets more complicated. If he has the flush, you may end up having to pay up to another $10 to see it. Also you need to consider the odds the river will give you a hand better than his flush or give his hand a better non-flush hand than yours. A much stronger case for a lay-down. The threat of another $10 to see showdown allows the tall stack to make a stronger bluff without putting as many chips at immediate risk.

Also, consider the flip side. Assuming the bluffer would always lose showdown, the bluff only needs to be successful greater than 1 in 4 times to be profitable. Both of you can make the wrong move most of the time and still be profitable. Fun game, eh?

To parphrase Caro:
If you're not catching bluffs, you're not calling enough.
If you're not caught bluffing, you're not bluffing enough.

Originally Posted by Xianti

Unless you have solid, reliable historical information that someone consistently bluffs, you should not assume someone is bluffing.

Disagree. Considers this.

You and another player are heads-up on on a $20 pot and he's on a short stack. River brings up a potential flush. You check, he bets his last $5. Do you call?

You can make this call, be wrong most of the time and still come out ahead! You need a greater than 1 in 5 chance of winning showdown to call.

However, if he had $10 left and bet it all you would need a greater than 1 in 3 chance of winning showdown to make the call.

It's good to be the taller stack...

Another reason it's good to be the tall stack. Lets say you're on the same $20 pot and both have $15 of chips left. Possible flush comes on the turn. You check, he bets $5. Now it gets more complicated. If he has the flush, you may end up having to pay up to another $10 to see it. Also you need to consider the odds the river will give you a hand better than his flush or give his hand a better non-flush hand than yours. A much stronger case for a lay-down. The threat of another $10 to see showdown allows the tall stack to make a stronger bluff without putting as many chips at immediate risk.

Also, consider the flip side. Assuming the bluffer would always lose showdown, the bluff only needs to be successful greater than 1 in 4 times to be profitable. Both of you can make the wrong move most of the time and still be profitable. Fun game, eh?

To parphrase Caro:
If you're not catching bluffs, you're not calling enough.
If you're not caught bluffing, you're not bluffing enough.

Originally Posted by Xianti

Unless you have solid, reliable historical information that someone consistently bluffs, you should not assume someone is bluffing.

Disagree. Considers this.

You and another player are heads-up on on a $20 pot and he's on a short stack. River brings up a potential flush. You check, he bets his last $5. Do you call?

You can make this call, be wrong most of the time and still come out ahead! You need a greater than 1 in 5 chance of winning showdown to call.

However, if he had $10 left and bet it all you would need a greater than 1 in 3 chance of winning showdown to make the call.

It's good to be the taller stack...

Another reason it's good to be the tall stack. Lets say you're on the same $20 pot and both have $15 of chips left. Possible flush comes on the turn. You check, he bets $5. Now it gets more complicated. If he has the flush, you may end up having to pay up to another $10 to see it. Also you need to consider the odds the river will give you a hand better than his flush or give his hand a better non-flush hand than yours. A much stronger case for a lay-down. The threat of another $10 to see showdown allows the tall stack to make a stronger bluff without putting as many chips at immediate risk.

Also, consider the flip side. Assuming the bluffer would always lose showdown, the bluff only needs to be successful greater than 1 in 4 times to be profitable. Both of you can make the wrong move most of the time and still be profitable. Fun game, eh?

To parphrase Caro:
If you're not catching bluffs, you're not calling enough.
If you're not caught bluffing, you're not bluffing enough.

Actually, the decision to call in the scenarios you give aren't based on an assumption of bluff. They're based on pot odds and informed decisions. If the pot odds are correct, it wouldn't matter whether you think the opponent is bluffing or not.

But I get your point. I was just saying that !Luck shouldn't assume someone is bluffing just on a whim -- which is what it sounded like he was suggesting.

Actually, the decision to call in the scenarios you give aren't based on an assumption of bluff. They're based on pot odds and informed decisions. If the pot odds are correct, it wouldn't matter whether you think the opponent is bluffing or not.

But I get your point. I was just saying that !Luck shouldn't assume someone is bluffing just on a whim -- which is what it sounded like he was suggesting.

Actually, the decision to call in the scenarios you give aren't based on an assumption of bluff. They're based on pot odds and informed decisions. If the pot odds are correct, it wouldn't matter whether you think the opponent is bluffing or not.

But I get your point. I was just saying that !Luck shouldn't assume someone is bluffing just on a whim -- which is what it sounded like he was suggesting.

Actually, the decision to call in the scenarios you give aren't based on an assumption of bluff. They're based on pot odds and informed decisions. If the pot odds are correct, it wouldn't matter whether you think the opponent is bluffing or not.

But I get your point. I was just saying that !Luck shouldn't assume someone is bluffing just on a whim -- which is what it sounded like he was suggesting.

Actually, the decision to call in the scenarios you give aren't based on an assumption of bluff. They're based on pot odds and informed decisions. If the pot odds are correct, it wouldn't matter whether you think the opponent is bluffing or not.

But I get your point. I was just saying that !Luck shouldn't assume someone is bluffing just on a whim -- which is what it sounded like he was suggesting.

Actually, the decision to call in the scenarios you give aren't based on an assumption of bluff. They're based on pot odds and informed decisions. If the pot odds are correct, it wouldn't matter whether you think the opponent is bluffing or not.

But I get your point. I was just saying that !Luck shouldn't assume someone is bluffing just on a whim -- which is what it sounded like he was suggesting.

Originally Posted by Fnord

I've been thinking about betting patterns a bit and think that a call followed by a re-raise (often over the top) by the same player in the same round of betting is the surest sign they have a very strong hand. Hence that bet should be given a huge call gap.

Comments?

Anyway, back to your thought.

I've always taken a call/re-raise as sure a sign of a strong hand as a check/raise. I wouldn't consider it anything else.

So, yeah. I agree with you.

Originally Posted by Fnord

I've been thinking about betting patterns a bit and think that a call followed by a re-raise (often over the top) by the same player in the same round of betting is the surest sign they have a very strong hand. Hence that bet should be given a huge call gap.

Comments?

Anyway, back to your thought.

I've always taken a call/re-raise as sure a sign of a strong hand as a check/raise. I wouldn't consider it anything else.

So, yeah. I agree with you.

Originally Posted by Fnord

I've been thinking about betting patterns a bit and think that a call followed by a re-raise (often over the top) by the same player in the same round of betting is the surest sign they have a very strong hand. Hence that bet should be given a huge call gap.

Comments?

Anyway, back to your thought.

I've always taken a call/re-raise as sure a sign of a strong hand as a check/raise. I wouldn't consider it anything else.

So, yeah. I agree with you.

Originally Posted by Fnord

I've been thinking about betting patterns a bit and think that a call followed by a re-raise (often over the top) by the same player in the same round of betting is the surest sign they have a very strong hand. Hence that bet should be given a huge call gap.

Comments?

Anyway, back to your thought.

I've always taken a call/re-raise as sure a sign of a strong hand as a check/raise. I wouldn't consider it anything else.

So, yeah. I agree with you.

Originally Posted by Fnord

I've been thinking about betting patterns a bit and think that a call followed by a re-raise (often over the top) by the same player in the same round of betting is the surest sign they have a very strong hand. Hence that bet should be given a huge call gap.

Comments?

Anyway, back to your thought.

I've always taken a call/re-raise as sure a sign of a strong hand as a check/raise. I wouldn't consider it anything else.

So, yeah. I agree with you.

Originally Posted by Fnord

I've been thinking about betting patterns a bit and think that a call followed by a re-raise (often over the top) by the same player in the same round of betting is the surest sign they have a very strong hand. Hence that bet should be given a huge call gap.

Comments?

Anyway, back to your thought.

I've always taken a call/re-raise as sure a sign of a strong hand as a check/raise. I wouldn't consider it anything else.

So, yeah. I agree with you.

I really do not know that much about the game, but i like being wrong here than in real life, so once again thank you.

I really do not know that much about the game, but i like being wrong here than in real life, so once again thank you.

I really do not know that much about the game, but i like being wrong here than in real life, so once again thank you.

I really do not know that much about the game, but i like being wrong here than in real life, so once again thank you.

I really do not know that much about the game, but i like being wrong here than in real life, so once again thank you.

I really do not know that much about the game, but i like being wrong here than in real life, so once again thank you.

That's why we're here, !Luck. Welcome to our forums.

That's why we're here, !Luck. Welcome to our forums.

That's why we're here, !Luck. Welcome to our forums.

That's why we're here, !Luck. Welcome to our forums.

That's why we're here, !Luck. Welcome to our forums.

That's why we're here, !Luck. Welcome to our forums.

in a ring game I would have to agree with you


in a tournament game it is completely different

in a ring game I would have to agree with you


in a tournament game it is completely different

in a ring game I would have to agree with you


in a tournament game it is completely different

in a ring game I would have to agree with you


in a tournament game it is completely different

in a ring game I would have to agree with you


in a tournament game it is completely different

in a ring game I would have to agree with you


in a tournament game it is completely different