WCOOP 2k Hand History Review with Andrew Brokos (Part 5)
[Total: 5 Average: 8.2/5]
You must sign in to vote
MORE IN THIS SERIES : Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4
Concepts In This Video: hand History • High Stakes • Late Stages • Mid Stages • Poker Stars • Post-flop • pre-flop • Single Table • WCOOP
spfeifer22
At 4:00 with that K6o hand that you flatted from BB, I often find myself similar situations with hands that I’m pretty confident are ahead. I weigh whether it’s more profitable to bet for value, or check to induce bluffs. Vs opponents who are likely to bluff, checking is best; vs opponents who are likely to station you, betting is best. What about very good opponents, who are neither stations nor overly aggro?
spfeifer22
I’m talking about river
Foucault
After check-calling turn, I don’t think there’s a case for betting the river against any opponent. Against more stationy types, you shouldn’t check the turn in the first place. Actually I think the turn check is really only good against very good opponents, and even against them betting may be better. But once you check-call turn, I would always check river.
It sounds like you might be focused too much on broad categorizations of opponents. Whether a player bluffs or calls or does anything else on the river usually has more to do with the cards he has than the sort of player he is. I mean, there are edge cases where a looser player might call with 66 and a tighter player wouldn’t, but no one is going to call 54 of diamonds and no one is gong to bet with 77. It’s far more important, I think, to figure out where this hand sits in your own range than to make a decision based on some broad read like “aggressive”.