Heads up hold'em hand
Abdul Jalib
stereotypical 80-160 pro. That is, he is loose-aggressive. He
raises. I have A2s spades. Your play?
I call. The flop comes 752 two spades. He bets, I raise, he 3-bets.
Your play?
I call. I have thought ahead and decided to see if he 3-bets
me again on the turn, in which case I may not need to pay him off on
the river with my pair of deuces. The turn is a jack of spades. I'm
happy to discard my plan. He bets. Your play?
I raise, he 3-bets. Your play?
I regard this as a peculiar 3-bet. If he is overplaying his hand,
then he will muck if I 4-bet. If he's not overplaying his hand, then
a 4-bet will cause him to check the river, so I don't see that I gain
much by 4-betting. So, I call. The river is a jack of another suit.
Board is 752JJ three spades. He bets. Your play?
What do you put him on?
--
Abdul
tadperry
news:l8v65wq...@posev.com...
I call thinking that J7o just nailed my ass.
So what really did happen?
tvp
Howard Lederer
Howard Lederer
"Abdul Jalib" <Abd...@PosEV.com> wrote in message
news:l8v65wq...@posev.com...
James L. Hankins
rag flop with two overcards trying to steal it?!) and then collect the chips
about six re-raises later. But then again, maybe that's why I don't play
80-160.
"Abdul Jalib" <Abd...@PosEV.com> wrote in message
news:l8v65wq...@posev.com...
Cadillac_Jones
>What do you put him on?
Kxs spades
"I'm the luckiest man in the world. I have a cigarette
lighter and a wife...and they both work!"
Jonathan Kaplan.com>
i raise.
he has QQ, one spade, and will pay me off.
in any case, there are quite a few hands i beat that will pay off in this
specific spot i think (you know him, i assume he knows you, you both know
that....), so i like one raise.
Jonathan
no matter where you go, there you are....
Jackie Jr.
I find all your plays up to this point to be good and reasonable. I
would raise him on the end here and if he folds=he had AK, if he just
calls, I would expect to beat his AA KK or QQ, maybe AJs. If he
raises one more time, I would be very confident that he hit his 77 or
55 for the full on the river -and probably call anyway to prove myself
right!
The Baron
Abdul Jalib <Abd...@PosEV.com> wrote in
K(spades) J(something else)
6-8(spades) trying to steal from the blind
The Baron
who's never played 80/160 and wouldn't know what to make of it if he
could afford it
D
possibly pocket 7s, and you're dead. The three-bet on the turn was a bit
aggressive, but it is possible he figured he had you set-over-set, or just
figured you were trying to (semi-bluff) steal the pot. You didn't really
say how he perceived your play, to the extent you could tell.
The other hands people have guessed don't seem to justify a three-bet flop
AND and three-bet turn.
Anyway, my uneducated wild guess is you're up against runner-runner quads.
But of course you gotta call on the river. A raise would be dubious at
best.
Disclaimer: The stupidity of anything said above is why I don't play
80/160.
"Abdul Jalib" <Abd...@PosEV.com> wrote in message
news:l8v65wq...@posev.com...
Steven Evans
I just took a nap because I figured the only time I would ever play 80-160
was in my dreams...LOL I would raise him on the river and call the 3 bet
because of the size of the pot, making him show me his flopped set or runner
runner full house, or a smaller flush.. Would usually feel that I had the
best hand.
Now, do I have to go back to sleep to find out what really happened, or are
you gonna post the outcome!
Thanks for the post...very thought provoking.
"Abdul Jalib" <Abd...@PosEV.com> wrote in message
news:l8v65wq...@posev.com...
aaron
9,8 spades
aaron
--
Vegasone at pokerstars and other fine poker sites
T. Chan
>80-160 hold'em, it's folded around to the small blind. He is a
>stereotypical 80-160 pro. That is, he is loose-aggressive. He
>raises. I have A2s spades. Your play?
Calling is fine. A7s/A9o and we are getting into 3-bet territory, I
think.
>
>I call. The flop comes 752 two spades. He bets, I raise, he 3-bets.
>Your play?
Very close between calling and 4-betting. Against top pair with a
non-ace kicker, or an overpair, you have 14 outs or basically even
money. I lean towards 4-betting but getting check-raised on the turn
unimproved would suck. 4-betting with aim towards checking back the
turn is reasonable since if you are somehow ahead, your opponent is
likely drawing to only 4 outs or less.
>
>I call. I have thought ahead and decided to see if he 3-bets
>me again on the turn, in which case I may not need to pay him off on
>the river with my pair of deuces. The turn is a jack of spades. I'm
>happy to discard my plan. He bets. Your play?
Easy raise.
>
>I raise, he 3-bets. Your play?
Call, for reasons described below. Some might say you should 4-bet
for balance, but the 4-bet semi-bluff is going to be pulled out of
your bag so infrequently that this isn't much of a consideration. Aim
to bet or raise the river and squeeze those extra bets.
>
>I regard this as a peculiar 3-bet. If he is overplaying his hand,
>then he will muck if I 4-bet. If he's not overplaying his hand, then
>a 4-bet will cause him to check the river, so I don't see that I gain
>much by 4-betting. So, I call. The river is a jack of another suit.
>Board is 752JJ three spades. He bets. Your play?
Raise.
>
>What do you put him on?
Although it's mathematically improbable, I think he has a smaller
flush; any two spades that were overcards to the flop would have been
very consistent with the way he played. A7 is reasonable given the
opponent, as is any overpair to sevens -- with A7/88 he could have
3-bet the turn with intentions of folding to a 4-bet (which would be
probably too risky and FPSish but from what little I know of
80-players they tend to be that way). His plan would have been to
check/call the river. But when the jack paired on the river, he
decided that he could bet for value since you didn't 4-bet (meaning
you obviously don't have a flush).
--
Self-indulgent homepage warning:
http://www.sfu.ca/~tchand/
lvdlrs
I at first thought he had Kx spades but then thought
he more likely had 10,9 spades. An important part is
what he thought you had.
He raises with 10,9 spades from the small blind and you
just called. You could have anything but crap. He picks
up a spade draw with two overcards. I can see him three
betting this. You not four betting could indicate to him
you got A-7, A-5 or and open ended straight if he thought
you were capable of defending your big blind with a one
gapper like 8,6.
The J on the turn gives him the flush. He made what he
was looking for, why not three bet again? You're too committed
to fold. Plus he's drawing at a straight flush should the
8 spades comes on fifth street. He thinks he's got you beat at
this point.
The last card pairs the board. Most loose aggressive players
hate to lose a bet when they have the best hand and scare cards
just don't stop them from betting. So he comes out betting.
I'd have to raise one time on the end. If he reraises I call.
Gary (...) Philips
tadperry
news:upah1l7...@corp.supernews.com...
> For reasons I can't quite articulate, I'd put him on 10-J (three bets on
the
> rag flop with two overcards trying to steal it?!) and then collect the
chips
> about six re-raises later. But then again, maybe that's why I don't play
> 80-160.
I figured him for top pair with a Jack of the flush suit for a kicker.
At higher levels, I've noticed that players are more likely to completely
ignore suited flops when they have top pair or an overpair and play it just
like a rainbow flop. Players tend to worry about the flush possibility
later, because action at this point remains ambiguous: it may or may not be
a flush.
So I can easily see a player playing this hand exactly like this with top
pair and a jack kicker that is drawing to a one card flush. Since the player
then continues jamming on the turn, this gives me a strong read that the
jack helped him and so he most likely holds a ragged two-pair at this point.
(Another possibility that matches this betting pattern is running jacks for
quads. AJ is another possibility, but I like the idea of J7 offsuit. )
The river is when a player overplaying his hand like this will usually
concede the possibility of his/her opponent holding a flush, and go suddenly
limp and tend toward checking and calling.
Abdul may be peeved by what the guy did, but notice that the player in
question (if I'm right) has a hand that honestly might be best as far as he
knows as he enters each betting round, and if it ISN'T best, it at least has
a chance to become best as far as he knows.
So fastplay became the player's best option. Just as it became clear to him
that he may really be beaten (this would occur to him on the turn) he gets
the card he needs and it doesn't matter anymore.
At that point he's hoping Abdul makes the mistake of raising a flush or
smaller full house which would match what Abdul has done to this point.
This is my best guess and I can't wait to see how wrong I am.
tvp
A. Koffiemov
>Board is 752JJ three spades. He bets. Your play?
>
>What do you put him on?
Full House, 222JJ
(I don't think he has another J).
Koffiemov
Lee Munzer
"lvdlrs"
> The last card pairs the board. Most loose aggressive players
> hate to lose a bet when they have the best hand and scare cards
> just don't stop them from betting. So he comes out betting.
> I'd have to raise one time on the end. If he reraises I call.
>
> Gary (...) Philips
Sure, take the easy way out (go with JK, Terrence, and Howard:-).
Tough question. While the opponent has given Abdul information on each
betting round, these facts make it somewhat difficult to put him on a
probability of having a better hand than a nut flush:
1) He is loose/aggressive and
2) The battle was headsup (negating the scare factor of the flush
possibility to some extent)
Here are some factors telling Abdul to raise:
A) The opponent is loose/aggressive
B) There are quite a few holdings that Abdul will beat
C) He probably perceives Abdul as a player who value bets
D) Abdul gave him the "right to bet" when he called the opponent's reraise
on the turn
Here is a key factor telling Abdul to call:
A) He will be risking the $80 raise to win $80 or lose $160 ... I'll go with
the contrarian play ... call.
Abdul, no RGS NFL picks this week (or did I miss the post)?
Lee
Abdul Jalib
Yes, this factor is what it comes down to. He is going to 3-bet me if
and only if he beats me (except he is capable of 3-bet bluffing),
meaning I need to be 2:1 sure I beat him when he at least calls my
raise (can't count the folds.) The hands he could have that beat me
are 77, 55, JJ, 22, and J7s, and maybe J7, J5s, and J2s. That's a
total of between 9 and 17 hands. Let's call it 12 hands on average.
Can I beat at least 24 hands consistent with his actions that he will
call me with? There are 7 each of Kxs and Qxs, plus T9s and T8s, plus
AA, KK, QQ. That's 31, and we haven't exhausted every possibility yet,
like AJ or KJ.
> I'll go with the contrarian play ... call.
I'm embarassed to say that in the heat of the battle, I just called.
I make some mistakes. This was one of them. I rarely miss bets like
this, but if I did it routinely, then I would open myself up to being
exploited by overaggression. The profit at hand is more than the
profit for this hand. Somehow, I feel better now that I have some
company in my bad play, though the majority said raise.
The opponent had Q8s. This in itself does not make a call bad. A
raise is demanded by the distribution of all his consistent hands.
One of the reasons I posted the hand was to see if anyone came up with
an alternate way to play the hand to avoid the slightly uncomfortable
situation on the river, but I don't think anybody did.
> Abdul, no RGS NFL picks this week (or did I miss the post)?
Yep, I posted my NFL week #4 picks over on rec.gambling.sports:
CAR+7, NYJ+3.5, CLE+6, TAM-7, see rec.gambling.sports for reasoning.
--
Abdul
A. Prock
>80-160 hold'em, it's folded around to the small blind. He is a
>stereotypical 80-160 pro. That is, he is loose-aggressive. He
>raises. I have A2s spades. Your play?
>
>I call. The flop comes 752 two spades. He bets, I raise, he 3-bets.
>Your play?
This is one of they key situations. On a two suited board,
extreme flop aggresion means that any pair, or A-hi will
pay off on the river. Every reasonably sophistocated player
will trap jammed flush draws with a call on the river.
The flip side, is that you don't want players to escape when
the turn card comes a spade, since many will fold hands like
2nd pair no flush draw when the turn completes a flush.
Given that you are in the unique situation of having a pair
as well. One tack I use with weak made hands/strong draws
is to take the free card on the turn exactly because I want
to the money to go in on the flop, and I want it to go in
on the turn when I'm ahead, but not when I'm behind.
So in general, I'll often four-bet with the intention of
taking the free card on the turn, and paying off on the
river. Of course, I can also raise when I hit my hand
harder.
To balance my play, I'll regularly take the free card with
hands like 93-spades, and bluff raise the river if I miss
my flush.
>I call. I have thought ahead and decided to see if he 3-bets
>me again on the turn, in which case I may not need to pay him off on
>the river with my pair of deuces. The turn is a jack of spades. I'm
>happy to discard my plan. He bets. Your play?
>
>I raise, he 3-bets. Your play?
I raise, I have this horribly bad habit of raising with
the best hand. It's something I seem to do without regard
for the consequences.
>I regard this as a peculiar 3-bet. If he is overplaying his hand,
>then he will muck if I 4-bet. If he's not overplaying his hand, then
>a 4-bet will cause him to check the river, so I don't see that I gain
>much by 4-betting.
I don't understand this. If he's an "escape artist" then this
is valuable information which you can use against him by punching
him on the turn with massive aggression with your strong draws, and
weak made hands.
As far as gaining anything, you gain quite a bit when you charge
a worse hand to draw out on you, especially if it's the kind that
will have to pay you off, like trips. Or it's the kind of hand
which *can't* pay you off on the river. The only time you lose
is when he's an escape artist.
>So, I call. The river is a jack of another suit.
>Board is 752JJ three spades. He bets. Your play?
I call. In this situation, i'd be reluctant to raise-fold,
so I'd have to raise-call. If I knew this player made thin
value bets on the river (does he?) then I'd certainly raise,
but massive aggression throughout the hand isn't a good
sign for me.
>What do you put him on?
Personally 22 or better if he's any good. If he's even
better I'd add overpairs to the distribution. (Is he really
going to 3-bet/fold with an overpair heads-up?) He might
also have a flush as well.
I think he'll have a flush often enough to make going buck
wild on the turn very worthwhile. But I would back off after
five bets.
If he's sane, I can't really put him on much more.
- Andrew
Newgca
>stereotypical 80-160 pro. That is, he is loose-aggressive. He
>raises. I have A2s spades. Your play?
>
>I call.
I also call.
The flop comes 752 two spades. He bets, I raise, he 3-bets.
>Your play?
>I call.
Acceptible, but WRONG, as you haven't read my "rule of 7". I four bet it for
more information knowing no matter what, I am not in a serious position [it
also stops him from knowing you in most probability have a flush draw. If I
four bet it and he calls, in all probability he will check on fourth street
enabling me to get a free card and I save 2 small bets or a large bet if I
miss. If he raises and makes it 5 bets, he may think you are putting him to a
test to stop him from betting out on four street and negating a potential
situation he thinks you gave him to slow the action down. If he does 5 bet the
hand, I six bet it for the same reason. If he makes it 7 bets, you know he has
a set and thus know a flush has to be made. Negative here is you lose more
small bets in this spot, but enable yourself to make far more from the hand if
you catch and you know where you stand. If he gives you all the action with 1
pair, he is not a problem and you will have his chips later in a game.
I have thought ahead and decided to see if he 3-bets
>me again on the turn, in which case I may not need to pay him off on
>the river with my pair of deuces. The turn is a jack of spades. I'm
>happy to discard my plan. He bets. Your play?
>
>I raise, he 3-bets. Your play?
You 4 bet, 8 bet 15 bet or whatever, as you should be absolutely clear about
his hand by now. He may be under the impression you have a set and he has a
larger set. He may think you have set and perhaps he had a similar hand to
yours, like the 6s8s.
>
>I regard this as a peculiar 3-bet.
You may see it that way, but it can be put into another perpective as he may
not think you have the flush and are just slowing the action DOWN AGAIN. He may
also have a flush.
> If he is overplaying his hand,
>then he will muck if I 4-bet. If he's not overplaying his hand, then
>a 4-bet will cause him to check the river, so I don't see that I gain
>much by 4-betting. So, I call. The river is a jack of another suit.
>Board is 752JJ three spades. He bets. Your play?
CALL as the RULE of 7 has you in the hand with all the money you need. You
should of 4 bet on the flop as GREAT PLAYERS would generally do. You chose not
to. I KNOW this is the WRONG PLAY as you can see when you make the flush and
want to make an extra bet. Problem is you could of made many extra bets if you
had played by the rule of 7. As far as losing many extra bets, you would not be
put into a situation where you would be thinking of raising on 7th street and
costing yourself 4 small bets if you are wrong. Far better to have used these 4
extra small bets on the flop to gain far more information and more
Though you may regard this play as this, I do not as I have written the rule of
7 before. You raise until he stops as you should of raised on the flop to add
more deception to your hand.
>
>What do you put him on?
The way you played the hand, it is easy to put him on a number of hands. The
way I would of played the hand, I would not be in that position.
Russ Georgiev
>
>--
>Abdul
>
>
>
>
>
>
Bill Vanek
>The opponent had Q8s.
Well, then I just have to ask something here: if this guy will play
this hand as you described, a hand none of the replies put him on, how
can you ever put this guy on anything, with any accuracy? Did you put
him on this hand? Did it cross your mind?
tadperry
Ahh.... well, that's another matter and I do have some ideas.
You would know better than me if this person is a good player overall and
tough to beat. It seems like that may be so, but how can I know from one
hand?
Okay, let's say he plays a wide range of hands as you described and will
muck when he has nothing or you've proved your hand is bigger. Let's also
say that he reraises you when he knows he's ahead (the nuts) or thinks he
possibly could be ahead or if not ahead now at least has a chance to pass
you. I say this based on the hands you listed as possibilities and how you
counted it out.
What you need to do with this player is this: Only you know you hold the nut
flush on this occasion, for you also play a wide range of hands similarly.
So you should meet his challenge of a raising war beginning from early in
the hand, keeping in mind all the tricks for getting more bets in.
If you're lucky and he's on one of those hands that he'll really, push and
not lay down (I'm sure this was one of them) then the course of action to
take playing the hand is to raise him at every opporunity, including backing
off one round only to pounce again if you know he'll fall for it and you can
get more that way.
My feeling is that if he tends to bet with flushes into a paired board after
so much action, you should tend to raise the nut flush against him when it
happens. In other words, if he ignores the paired board and you know that,
that allows you to ignore it to a degree as well.
Note that usually I would recommend most players to mostly play the board
when playing against players who also play the board. This is what I call
"straightforward poker" when everyone at the table is like that.
In other words, players won't bet hands that can't beat flushes if a flush
possibility shows on the board and won't bet hands that can't beat three of
a kind if a pair shows on the board.
Another group of players ignores that and can speed with hands that aren't
even close to the nuts which is a sign of a stronger player because they are
trying to put a relative value on their hand versus what you might have.
As I said, normally I would recommend that a player NOT raise a paired board
after so much action because you're stuck between a rock and a hard place if
there's a re-raise as you'll never be able to lay that nut flush down on the
river even though dead, dead, dead and you know it. (Although you might get
to the point that you do it correctly.)
However, you can't play the board purely or your hand is too easily
readable.
So what's this all add up to?
You want to tend to raise your hand the closer to the top of the list of
best hand (for this board) that your hand ranks. So you should nearly always
raise (unless some read prevents it) when full yourself, but also sometimes
raise with that nut flush because of all the hands it can beat.
How often?
A game theory perspective suggests that you should raise more often than not
at the same ratio as the chance of him losing to you. If you have him beat X
out of Y times, then you should raise him X out of Y times whenever the
situation arises even absent any tells.
As a matter of fact, this number falls all the way to the rock bottom "bluff
raise on the river, I missed my draw" which should be (obviously) very rare,
but a great part of a solid game.
Also, as the hand progresses you can look for indications of where you are
in the hand. Whatever information you pick up needs to go into deciding
which way to go with it on any given occasion as you try to meet this
general mathematical guideline.
The people I play this way have quite a bit of trouble with it and I'd love
to try it out against your crowd, but I haven't convinced any rich friends
to back me yet. ;-)
tvp
The Beet Man
>80-160 hold'em, it's folded around to the small blind. He is a
>stereotypical 80-160 pro. That is, he is loose-aggressive. He
>raises. I have A2s spades. Your play?
I would consider a re-raise, but the crappy kicker probably makes a
call more correct.
>I call. The flop comes 752 two spades. He bets, I raise, he 3-bets.
>Your play?
I like your call. I don't know if it's more a matter of personal
style or not but I tend to refrain from 4-betting on the flop,
preferring to keep my leverage for the turn. I would simply call here
a variety of hands here and go for a raise on the turn, including a
set, flush draw and pair, flush draw with overcards, etc.
>I call. I have thought ahead and decided to see if he 3-bets
>me again on the turn, in which case I may not need to pay him off on
>the river with my pair of deuces. The turn is a jack of spades. I'm
>happy to discard my plan. He bets. Your play?
>
>I raise, he 3-bets. Your play?
>
>I regard this as a peculiar 3-bet. If he is overplaying his hand,
>then he will muck if I 4-bet. If he's not overplaying his hand, then
>a 4-bet will cause him to check the river, so I don't see that I gain
>much by 4-betting. So, I call.
I would have probably capped. An important reason to cap is because I
might sometimes try a 4-bet semi-bluff with something like AK with the
A spades or a pair and just the A spades or something similar. This
4-bet semi-bluff has the potential to either make my opponent fold a
hand with outs, or perhaps fold a better hand, and if not I may earn
the right to check my hand down on the river. But if I'm making that
sort of semi-bluff I need to 4-bet some real hands too. I like your
alternate play and the logic behind it, though, as long as you
sometimes 4-bet and sometimes 3-bet with the intention of raising the
river.
>The river is a jack of another suit.
>Board is 752JJ three spades. He bets. Your play?
I read your answer already, but before I read it my insinct was to
raise. I didn't even bother with the Bayesian analysis because
insinctually I assumed there were a bunch more hands we could beat
than we couldn't beat. Additionally, by refraining from capping the
turn, we've induced additional "value bets" from the opponent that we
mightn't otherwise have gotten, like from a K or Q-high flush or
similar.
>What do you put him on?
Basically, what you said in your follow-up. My only question was
whether or not he'd 3-bet with an overpair without a spade. If he
wouldn't, he can only have 2 overpairs, KsK and QsQ, and if he would,
he can have 13 overpairs, 6 KKs, 6 QQs, and 1 AA. I would expect most
loose-aggressive pros to be capable of 3-betting the turn here with
the non-spade overpairs. AJ would be a fairly frisky turn bet since
the Js is on the board, but from his perspective it's probably less
likely you have an overpair given that you didn't re-raise before the
flop, so he has more reason to believe his AJ his good. He could also
be defensive betting something like 88-TT with a spade, although
that's also pretty frisky. But from my albeit limited experience
against these 80-160 caliber pros, they're capable of all sorts of
frisky plays.
>One of the reasons I posted the hand was to see if anyone came up with
>an alternate way to play the hand to avoid the slightly uncomfortable
>situation on the river, but I don't think anybody did.
If you 4-bet the turn, you should probably be more fearful of his bet
on the river since you've shown more strength, and in that case you
might be inclined to just call, but you're only going to be in that
uncomfortable situation about 1 time in 4 so it's not something to be
terribly concerned about. in general I think your play of stopping at
3 bets is more profitable (as long as you balance by sometimes
4-betting.)
>> Abdul, no RGS NFL picks this week (or did I miss the post)?
>
>Yep, I posted my NFL week #4 picks over on rec.gambling.sports:
>CAR+7, NYJ+3.5, CLE+6, TAM-7, see rec.gambling.sports for reasoning.
I can't believe I'm actually going in there, but ok.
--
This post brought to you courtesy of the Beet Man!
T. Pascal
> I make some mistakes. This was one of them. I rarely miss bets like
> this, but if I did it routinely, then I would open myself up to being
> exploited by overaggression. The profit at hand is more than the
> profit for this hand. Somehow, I feel better now that I have some
> company in my bad play, though the majority said raise.
>
Abdul, I don't think anyone will fault you for this. When that board
pairs up (JJ) on the end like that, that is the most scary thing I can
imagine. The only thing worse than a paired board is a trips board.
> One of the reasons I posted the hand was to see if anyone came up with
> an alternate way to play the hand to avoid the slightly uncomfortable
> situation on the river, but I don't think anybody did.
>
Yes, I was going to comment on this. Perhaps capping the two previous
streets would have helped. I know that the smallest hand I will
slowplay is quads. However, what you did does not classify as
slow-play. One more bet on the turn might have helped, and I think
you knew that when the river showed. But one more bet called by the
opponent puts even more fear into your heart that you are beat.
I doubt you could have avoided the unpleasant feeling anyway, and on
top of it, you won. Also, you calculated the situation after the
hand, thinking and pondering it so that the next time something
similar happens you will be ready and Allah will smile on you, Allah
willing.
eleaticus
"T. Pascal" <t_pa...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:2611b663.02093...@posting.google.com...
> > One of the reasons I posted the hand was to see if anyone came up with
> > an alternate way to play the hand to avoid the slightly uncomfortable
> > situation on the river, but I don't think anybody did.
> Yes, I was going to comment on this. Perhaps capping the two previous
> streets would have helped.
That's related to what Russ was saying: put a bunch of bets in on the flop.
By the end of the flop betting the other player will think he is beat, or at
least scared (unless he has a big hand). Then, check-check, check-check is
quite likely, or check-bet, check-bet.
If he has the big hand you can just call on the turn and river.
That is, (try to) avoid much betting on the turn and river by putting in
lots of bets on the flop.
Eleaticus
Dave Hill
Hilly
"Abdul Jalib" <Abd...@PosEV.com> wrote in message
news:l8v65wq...@posev.com...
res16xkk
"Dave Hill" <d.h...@sk.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:upufm65...@corp.supernews.com...