Hi,
Originally posted by cjchalmers
*in this hand villian is a complete unknown
Hi thanks for your reply... I agree with you, as soon as he pot c-bet the flop his range became much smaller...
I was extremely unhappy to see the ace on the turn.
It was also my thought at the time when he c-bet the turn that he was unlikely to do this with 8-8-KK...
I raised the turn as i believed i still had lots of value (vs bluff / AK).. taking this line i would not have bet the river and would have also probably folded to anything other than a "block bet" on the river...
I figured in this situation if my hand was good enough to call, then it was also good enough to raise...
If i am in doubt of a situation i like to ask the question ... seems like i got a pretty clear answer...
Would be most grateful if you have the time to give your opinion on my further comments...
*shame i didn't have any reads... these kind of spots become so much easier.
EDIT: I also like asking the question on the turn because he is still 120bb deep after c betting...
I don't think you're wrong per se about most of what you said about that hand, I just read more into some things than you do.
Little things are important. Him open-raising to pot doesn't tell us much, but most fish won't bet $0.8 into $0.85 or $2 into $2.45, if they wanna bet pot they'll just do that. So coupled with the fact that he has more than 100bb so far (he's not some fish running around with 60bb at the very least even tho fish can run stacks up occasionally), I think it's quite likely he's some sort of regular, which is why I treated him as such.
If he had potted the flop and potted the turn, it would have been more likely he was just some fish with absolutely no idea when to c-bet and when not to c-bet, hence giving him a lot more potential hands on the turn including a lot of Ax hands like AQ/A7 and stuff like TT-KK as well, in which case I would indeed still raise the turn and felt it or just call planning on shoving over any river for value.
The only thing you said that bothers me is the "good enough to call = good enough to raise" thing. It might be close to true against some mindless fish, since when they deem a hand good enough to bet they tend to call a raise with it very often. But it's going to turn out completely wrong as you as you encounter thinking opponents. Just look at how tag-on-tag violence works on dry flops between straightforward players.
Let's assume two decent nits, the kind that can fold seemingly big hands when they feel they're beat. Nit1 opens AK from UTG, Nit2 calls on the BU, flop is A72r, Nit1 c-bets big and Nit2 raises. What goes through Nit1's mind at that point looks like "damn, I c-bet my TPTK big and yet that guy raised, people don't raise Ax hands there so he probably has a set", and suddenly his TPTK is a bluff-catcher. Hence even if Nit2 was way ahead with his 22, he's never going to get called by worse hands unless Nit1 punctually feels like he's not folding his bluff-catcher. Thus 22 was good enough to call with for sure being way ahead of Nit1's range, yet there was nothing to be gained by raising, if anything it gave Nit1 an easy fold with TPTK, whereas he might have continued to valueown himself if Nit2 had just called the flop representing something like AQ.
Hope it helps.
