Saquird: bets $408.80 and is all-in
Stroggos_nz: calls $408.80
Showdown Saquird: shows (high card Queen)
Stroggos_nz: shows (a pair of Jacks)
Stroggos_nz collected $997 from pot
Summary Total pot $1000 | Rake $3
Board
Seat 1: MissOracle (button) folded before Flop (didnt bet)
Seat 2: Saquird (small blind) showed and lost with high card Queen
Seat 3: Stroggos_nz (big blind) showed and won ($997) with a pair of Jacks
Seat 4: kingTclubs folded before Flop (didnt bet)
Seat 5: 4elMedSvin folded before Flop (didnt bet)
Seat 6: skow73 folded before Flop (didnt bet)
thats pretty sick, but isnt his range much stronger
1
Stroggoz New Zealand. Aug 26 2019 23:04. Posts 5296
Both solver and his range are significantly stronger than mine by the river, that doesn't mean this isn't an ok call, without info. These spots are where you have to abandon the solver to a large extent and start asking questions like how would they split their sizings on river here. For example does he bet QT with an overbet jam sizing here? does he bet 1/3 size with hands like Q9? and how would he assort his bluffs to each sizing if so, this would be a complex strategy that's difficult to balance, and we can try to play exploitative poker if we think we know enough.
One of 3 non decent human beings on a site of 5 people with between 2-3 decent human beings
On August 26 2019 22:04 Stroggoz wrote:
Both solver and his range are significantly stronger than mine by the river, that doesn't mean this isn't an ok call, without info. These spots are where you have to abandon the solver to a large extent and start asking questions like how would they split their sizings on river here. For example does he bet QT with an overbet jam sizing here? does he bet 1/3 size with hands like Q9? and how would he assort his bluffs to each sizing if so, this would be a complex strategy that's difficult to balance, and we can try to play exploitative poker if we think we know enough.
Does that mean you could find a fold if he bet 2/3 - 3/4 pot?
(high card Queen)
