<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:podcast="https://podcastindex.org/namespace/1.0"
xmlns:rawvoice="https://blubrry.com/developer/rawvoice-rss/"

	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Turning No Pair Into a Bluff	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2009/12/turning-no-pair-into-a-bluff/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2009/12/turning-no-pair-into-a-bluff/</link>
	<description>Weekly poker podcast hosted by Andrew Brokos and Nate Meyvis featuring interviews with famous and behind-the-scenes figures from the poker world as well as an in-depth poker strategy segment.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Dec 2009 07:31:20 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: foucault		</title>
		<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2009/12/turning-no-pair-into-a-bluff/#comment-3988</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[foucault]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 20:21:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=3487#comment-3988</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[In reply to &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2009/12/turning-no-pair-into-a-bluff/#comment-3987&quot;&gt;CowboyJC&lt;/a&gt;.

The weaker the hand is, the more likely I am to check it behind on the flop. So while I&#039;m not often (though I am occasionally) checking AA or KK, I&#039;m somewhat more often checking JT or A9. Even in a 3-bet pot, there aren&#039;t too many second best hands I can expect to get it in with me on the flop. 

You&#039;re right that a lot of my flop checking range is weak, but most of that range is folding to the turn bet. When I check flop and call turn, it looks like I have either a moderate hand that doesn&#039;t want to play for stacks but is good enough to bet the river for value, or a 9 that just improved to trips. Even a monster like quads or T&#039;s full is possible.

The bottom line though is that it&#039;s not very often that I&#039;m checking the flop and calling the turn with a hand that needs to bluff on the river. Looking at it now, I can&#039;t imagine he folds a T, but I&#039;m pretty sure he does let go of an underpair.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to <a href="https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2009/12/turning-no-pair-into-a-bluff/#comment-3987">CowboyJC</a>.</p>
<p>The weaker the hand is, the more likely I am to check it behind on the flop. So while I&#8217;m not often (though I am occasionally) checking AA or KK, I&#8217;m somewhat more often checking JT or A9. Even in a 3-bet pot, there aren&#8217;t too many second best hands I can expect to get it in with me on the flop. </p>
<p>You&#8217;re right that a lot of my flop checking range is weak, but most of that range is folding to the turn bet. When I check flop and call turn, it looks like I have either a moderate hand that doesn&#8217;t want to play for stacks but is good enough to bet the river for value, or a 9 that just improved to trips. Even a monster like quads or T&#8217;s full is possible.</p>
<p>The bottom line though is that it&#8217;s not very often that I&#8217;m checking the flop and calling the turn with a hand that needs to bluff on the river. Looking at it now, I can&#8217;t imagine he folds a T, but I&#8217;m pretty sure he does let go of an underpair.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: CowboyJC		</title>
		<link>https://www.thinkingpoker.net/2009/12/turning-no-pair-into-a-bluff/#comment-3987</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[CowboyJC]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 20:05:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.thinkingpoker.net/?p=3487#comment-3987</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m surprised you think the villain lays down his pocket pairs and possibly a T to a river bet here. From his perspective, if you have a T or an over pair, wouldn&#039;t you be pretty likely to bet the flop? For 3-1 odds, I&#039;d be pretty tempted in the villain&#039;s position to call.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m surprised you think the villain lays down his pocket pairs and possibly a T to a river bet here. From his perspective, if you have a T or an over pair, wouldn&#8217;t you be pretty likely to bet the flop? For 3-1 odds, I&#8217;d be pretty tempted in the villain&#8217;s position to call.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
