<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Another stupid Holdem Play</title>
	<link>http://www.learnpokerstrategy.com/2005/09/10/another-stupid-holdem-play/</link>
	<description>Learn how to play poker by reading my exploits as I go from a novice to winning my way into $250,000 tournaments</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:54:38 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.2</generator>

	<item>
 		<title>Comment on Another stupid Holdem Play by: Ben</title>
		<link>http://www.learnpokerstrategy.com/2005/09/10/another-stupid-holdem-play/#comment-13</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:27:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.learnpokerstrategy.com/2005/09/10/another-stupid-holdem-play/#comment-13</guid>
					<description>The call on the river wasn't that bad.  The way she checked and called in the previous betting rounds indicated weakness, maybe she was on a straight draw or had an 8.

She probably only bet 300 on the river because you had checked, showing weakness.  She was no doubt pot committed at that point and would have called any bet so the check on your part was correct.

I think betting 2/3 of the pot on the flop would have given you the information you needed to fold on the river.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>The call on the river wasn&#8217;t that bad.  The way she checked and called in the previous betting rounds indicated weakness, maybe she was on a straight draw or had an 8.</p>
	<p>She probably only bet 300 on the river because you had checked, showing weakness.  She was no doubt pot committed at that point and would have called any bet so the check on your part was correct.</p>
	<p>I think betting 2/3 of the pot on the flop would have given you the information you needed to fold on the river.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
