holy mofo! sick no limit situation...

[goose 0]

Third possibility here would be Negreanu on pocket tens

[schwarz269 0]

since ted did check this hand, he had to have some thought in his head that dn had the 6. can anyone think of a situation that dn could have made ted fold his hand

[Stallion714 0]

Wow, I mean just the fact that there is even a question wether or not he should bet there; makes me reconsider my approach to the problem.Perhaps there was a previous situation where DN said, "Cmon, you know it's split".Then either there was a showdown somehow, and DN had the unlikeliest of nuts, or DN moved somebody off the solid 2nd. Regardless, I don't think either one of em were playing for the 30k so...

[WaitingforMyRuca 0]

I honestly think Ted put him either on a King highwhat the censored are you smokingwhat is DN calling an allin and a call with....KQ??? noand DN also isnt not stupid enough to bluff a dry side pot, K high makes no sense

Hey dumb Fuck don't come attacking my posts with logical fallacies. You took one part of my post ignoring the rest of it. First off, yes i think DN would call an allin for a little more out of the big blind in a heads up pot with KQ. But, the point is he didn't and niether you or me know if he would for sure. After all, I think D'agastino was all in with a weak king if i remember right. If you wont call in that spot and you throw away KQ there, that's on you. You're welcome to play me anytime. All I said was I think that Ted thought that he may have put out a weak lead with either an Ace with a strong kicker, or a 6 wanting to get raised, or possibly a king high for value. Correct me if I'm wrong but..."DN would bluff a dry side pot with king high" and..."I think it's possible tyhat Ted may have thought that DN would bet a king high for value" are two different sentences with two different meanings. If Ted thought he had anything other than a 6 or high card (meaning an ace or weaker full house) why wouldn't he bet? You may be right about him bluffing if he had a king. But good thing for him he didn't have king high. Good thing for me I never said that DN would bluff with a king high, if you find where I said that then I'll buy you a beer. Good luck though. actually, I don't know that you can really argue cause all you said was that it makes no sense, but didn't explain why. So really you don't even have a complete argument. you just made a statement based purely on opinion with no fact to back it up. Next time you quote me make sure you don't take it out of context. Don't even bother replying to this...I already know you're stupid. You have nothing to prove I believe you, you are a stupid fuck

[Abbaddabba 0]

Now from Ted perspective Its pretty clear DN either has a case 6 or the case Aso if you bet you have a 50% chance of getting calledand you have a 50% chance of getting raised

It's not 50/50. It's far more likely for daniel to hold an ace, given that there was a raise preflop. It's overwhelmingly more likely that he holds an ace in the situation.The probability of him holding a given a 6 is only equal if you think rationality played no role in his preflop decision, and he'd be as inclined to call with low cards as he would be with high ones.I dont see how anyone could justify not value betting.It's true that daniel knows that, from his opponents perspective, it's pointless to bet with a single ace if his opponent knows that he (daniel) is holding another lone ace. Daniel has no reason to believe that forrest knows he holds an ace. Therefor, he could be value betting a single ace, in a situation where pocket kings or a smaller pocket pair has at least some remote chance of calling.At the same time, forrest has an aggressive image and it may appear likely that he's trying to make a grab at the side pot.A single ace will call a small bet on the river. There's no question about it.....and at the same time, ted forrest faces a similar (but different) situation if daniel was to checkraise the river. The thing is, forrest knows that daniel certainly wouldnt raise a single ace, since he knows that there are only two reasons that forrest would bet the river; one where he holds at LEAST an ace, and one where he holds nothing (and therefor cannot call a raise). Daniel, from forrests perspective, would have the same motives initially - but would NOT given the information that forrest's bet provides. Forrest clearly holds an ace or better, or nothing. Given that it's desirable for both players to have another competitor eliminated, it's less likely that he would try to bluff daniel off a winner; even if the side pot wasn't dry.

He's not gonna check the nuts and risk the chance of Ted checking it behind him.

He would if he thought forrest woudl bluff at it, or value bet an ace. But if he thought forrest was bluffing at it, he wouldnt raise unless he has a 6 (since forrest knows that an ace wont raise, and he cannot hold two aces since two of the remaining 3 are in his hand) OR he's bluffing. So a checkraise there would almost definitely mean he had the 6 - UNLESS of course he thought forrest was bluffing AND he coudlnt beat a bluff (less than king high), so made a move back at him - and for daniel to hold less than king high in that situation would require him to make some incredibly irrational calls prior(which forrest could basically discount).I think optimal play for daniel would be to check and call, unless the bet was absurdly large. You're more likely to induce a bluff by checking than you are to get a caller with worse if you bet for value. I think optimal play for forrest would be make a small bet, and fold to an absurdly large raise (given the line of rationality outlined above).It could be argued that large bets for both players NEED to be called, but i disagree and can outline why if anyone cares.

[macphec 0]

You HAVE to bet here TEDDY!DN would absolutely call w an Ace and quite possibly a lot of other hands think Ted is on a steal. 10 10 99 etcIf DN has the case Ace TEd is going to win a monster pot.Good post

[strategy 4]

For those of you who keep repeating that bluffing into dry side pots is stupid:http://tinyurl.com/brbo9If the first post is not convincing, you need to read the multiple Paul Phillips posts that make it painfully obvious that the "never bluff a dry side pot" maxim is not always correct.

[akishore 0]

For those of you who keep repeating that bluffing into dry side pots is stupid:http://tinyurl.com/brbo9If the first post is not convincing, you need to read the multiple Paul Phillips posts that make it painfully obvious that the "never bluff a dry side pot" maxim is not always correct.

in 2+2's internet magazine, this month's issue also has an article on it where there are multiple times where bluffing a dry side pot can be okay.i never said that bluffing a dry side pot is always stupid.but here, both ted and daniel realize that this is DEFINITELY the time to NOT bluff a dry side pot, if there ever was any.(bubble, no chips in a side pot, etc.)aseem

[strategy 4]

For those of you who keep repeating that bluffing into dry side pots is stupid:http://tinyurl.com/brbo9If the first post is not convincing, you need to read the multiple Paul Phillips posts that make it painfully obvious that the "never bluff a dry side pot" maxim is not always correct.

in 2+2's internet magazine, this month's issue also has an article on it where there are multiple times where bluffing a dry side pot can be okay.i never said that bluffing a dry side pot is always stupid.but here, both ted and daniel realize that this is DEFINITELY the time to NOT bluff a dry side pot, if there ever was any.(bubble, no chips in a side pot, etc.)aseem

This was mostly for Eddie's benefit. I know it's not the biggest secret, but a LOT of people have it completely wrong.