Ak 1-2

[Zach6668 513]

My only problem with this theory is that a villain 3-bet on the turn is generally a lot stronger than CM seems to give them credit for. I think it could be due to his style, and the way people play against him, but a random villain won't 3-bet turns lightly.And again, for sanity's sake, I see showdown.

[Actuary 3]

You think, given we are almost always behind after the 3-bet, that charging 1 more is worth much?I'd say seeing the 10BB pot > Charging the draw

the cliff's notes.

[antistuff 0]

My only problem with this theory is that a villain 3-bet on the turn is generally a lot stronger than CM seems to give them credit for. I think it could be due to his style, and the way people play against him, but a random villain won't 3-bet turns lightly.And again, for sanity's sake, I see showdown.

i think his point is being missed (and if im speaking incorrectly for you cm, my apologies). when that turn goes to three we are usually hosed. BUT if we are going to continue with the hand there is a little more value in capping the turn and then folding to a bet on the river instead of just calling down.

[Actuary 3]

i think his point is being missed (and if im speaking incorrectly for you cm, my apologies). when that turn goes to three we are usually hosed. BUT if we are going to continue with the hand there is a little more value in capping the turn and then folding to a bet on the river instead of just calling down.

yep that's his pointHence my rebuttals

[Zach6668 513]

i think his point is being missed (and if im speaking incorrectly for you cm, my apologies). when that turn goes to three we are usually hosed. BUT if we are going to continue with the hand there is a little more value in capping the turn and then folding to a bet on the river instead of just calling down.

Yeah, and my point is that the reverse implied tilt odds of me not seeing a showdown negate that (unproven, debatable) extra value.Honestly, let's just fold.

[DrZebra 0]

If CM assumes that (to simplify) no one alive bluffs this hard and leads the river, then it doesn't matter if the villain IS bluffing, because for calculation's sake he ISN'T (since it happens zero percent of the time.)haha

[antistuff 0]

If CM assumes that (to simplify) no one alive bluffs this hard and leads the river, then it doesn't matter if the villain IS bluffing, because for calculation's sake he ISN'T (since it happens zero percent of the time.)haha

i dont quite follow.