Quote:
Originally Posted by Isaac Baron
I have a buncha thoughts on this awesome hand, but I am in a rush right now and a lot of my thoughts Justin has already brought up. One thing that I don't think anyone has mentioned is... Barry, you keep insisting that if Peter had folded you would have reraised Tom and gotten it in on the flop. Why? Tom is insane and crazy and sick, but he is also very smart and very good, his range on the flop is bluffs and hands that are beating you, I just can not fathom it being anything else. If this is the case why would you 3-bet the flop against him? Clearly Tom is more than capable of trying to get you off an overpair and firing at least one more big bullet to try and do so in which case you make more money if you are never folding your hand in a heads-up pot vs him.
|
You are in agreement with the majority on here. I thought that if he had a Ten, Tom would not fire again if I called, so it is better for me to reraise and deprive him of a free card. People on here seem to think he was planning on bluffing from the start. I disagree and just think the hand unfolded for him in a way that he thought it was worth going forward.
You can make a case that if I am right, then if Tom 4-bets me on the flop I must be beat. But I just figured I would have over half my stack in there at that point and it would probably be right to cater to his possible craziness combined with the slim chance that he slowplayed something like KK.
At some point Tom will post on here and tell us what he thinks he would have done if everyone folded and I called on the flop.
Barry