mtdesmoines, on Wednesday, November 22nd, 2006, 3:18 PM, said:
Actually, I agree with this chickenshit reasoning. Here are our hopes if we call: AQ, or another poorly played AK and chop chop. A very small range of hands.Here are our hopes if we fold: straight, two pair, set ... any of about 30 hands. We fold here and play our AK better next time and hope that the moron plays as badly next time (if he's bluffing).
Frankly, if we think he has AQ or AK, we are idiots.I also think if we think he has two pair we are idiots.He is either very strong or bluffing...ie. a set or a straight....and in reality, he doesn't have T6 or 33...and probably not AA and 56 would be a stretch.And his range of bluffing hands is actually greater than his range of strong hands.Also - I don't know where you get 30 hands.There are 18 TOTAL hands that beat us...and if you think he has hands like 73, 93, and T6...well...yeeesh. IMO there are 12 hands that are plausible, and 4 of those that are probable.However, there are at probably 30 hands he could bluff with here...maybe even more as he has every reason to believe we're weaker than an Ethiopian on a hunger strike.I've said it before and I'll say it again...what he has isn't the key here...what's important is what he thinks we have.If he thinks we're weak thena. he has plenty of reason to bluffb. he has plenty of reason to bet small on the river for valuec. he has zero reason to push the river, even with the nuts, because if we're weak we won't callIf he thinks we're strong thena. he won't push if he's weakb. he won't push if he's mid-rangec. he may not even push with a setd. he may check/fold if he's weak and check/call-raise if he's also stronge. he could push with the nuts, 2nd nuts, 3rd nuts figuring will have to call with our strong handHe doesn't have any reason to think we're strong....he has plenty of reason to think we're weak.