Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="ChuckTs, post: 410957, member: 467"] I agree with dingo here. I'm a strong believer in Doyle Brunson's theory of being the constant aggressor, and leading with strong hands. Example (much like your situation, shortstacked, but i'll change some bets): say you raise PF with QQ up to $8 ata 1/2 table. A late position smart tight/aggressive player calls your raise, and both blinds fold. So you can assume he probably has AK, KQ, JJ,TT or something of similar strength. Flop comes KQ2. Forget about suits, as there will only be a small chance that your opponent will have the draw. (pot is at $19) option 1: checkraise you check, opponent bets $12 on what you assume is him hitting his king. You raise to say $36 or $30 - he will immediately reconsider his hand, and if he's a solid enough player, he will fold. profit = $8 PF, $3 in blinds, and $12 for his bet = $23 option 2: lead out you bet $12 - if he's a solid player, he won't just cold call with his kings here, he'll raise. Say he raises it to $30. You then come over the top (for the sake of illustration, lets say you both had $100 in front of you when the hand started) for an all in. He's now fairly pot-committed, and whether or not he calls you (pray he has KQ here!) you've got him to put much more in the middle with this option. This is especially effective if you have been very aggressive throughout the session, and is why Brunson makes so much goddamn money being a megalomaniac! :) profit = $8 PF, $3 in blinds, his $30 raise = $41 (plus another $62 if he decides to call your all in.) on top of the fact that you can just plain get more money in with leading out, I never like to give a free card, which is what happens all too often with an attempted check-raise. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us