|
|
 Originally Posted by agnesamurphy
In the second example, wouldn't raising be justified as a way to protect your hand? There are possible draws out there, and as what happened in the example, the flush got there. Raising might have folded out that draw. I'm wondering if the fact that the villain overbet makes a difference in whether or not you raise or just call.
gah, SPR is what, around 4? How can you be considering protecting your hand? You can't even say that maximizing your chances of winning the pot immediately helps you, because it is heads-up, so ICM stuff doesn't apply. I think Filik is right, you have essentially the nuts and the only question is: What is the best way to convince villain to put all his chips into the pot?
Even if villain has the flush draw (which incidentally is devalued because the board is paired), hero has the nut flush re-draw. So, all things considered, I think "protecting" your hand is not worth thinking about here very much at all.
I think the idea of "protecting your hand" is very overrated in NL Hold'em. Although I am mostly a cash game player, I think this is something that holds true in the heads-up portion of MTT/SNG as well. You're almost always better off (when you have a value hand) considering how best to keep your range wide and (more importantly) how to keep villain's payoff range wider still, rather than protecting your hand. Maybe in earlier stages of the tournament, when the chance of busting out outweighs the extra chips you may gain from playing passively, it is better to just keep betting for value/protection, but such considerations cannot apply heads-up, imo.
|
Reply With Quote