Drawing to what, buddy?

pokerstars Game #3090664681: Hold'em Limit ($1/$2) - 2005/11/18 - 11:15:14 (ET)
Table 'Avior' Seat #1 is the button
Seat 1: ChiefLink31 ($70.50 in chips)
Seat 2: swingdoc ($11 in chips)
Seat 3: PA Gamble ($95 in chips)
Seat 4: FPau ($55 in chips)
Seat 5: RonnieFish ($17.25 in chips)
swingdoc: posts small blind $0.50
PA Gamble: posts big blind $1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to FPau [Kc 2d]
FPau: folds
RonnieFish: calls $1
ChiefLink31: raises $1 to $2
swingdoc: folds
PA Gamble: calls $1
RonnieFish: calls $1
*** FLOP *** [6c 6h Qc]
Jrod62587 joins the table at seat #6
PA Gamble: checks
RonnieFish: checks
ChiefLink31: bets $1
PA Gamble: folds
RonnieFish: calls $1
*** TURN *** [6c 6h Qc] [Kd]
RonnieFish: checks
ChiefLink31: bets $2
RonnieFish: raises $2 to $4
ChiefLink31: calls $2
*** RIVER *** [6c 6h Qc Kd] [8d]
RonnieFish: bets $2
ChiefLink31: calls $2
*** SHOW DOWN ***
RonnieFish: shows [3c 2c] (a pair of Sixes)
ChiefLink31: shows [Tc Td] (two pair, Tens and Sixes)
ChiefLink31 collected $19.75 from pot
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $20.50 | Rake $0.75
Board [6c 6h Qc Kd 8d]
Seat 1: ChiefLink31 (button) showed [Tc Td] and won ($19.75) with two pair, Tens and Sixes
Seat 2: swingdoc (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 3: PA Gamble (big blind) folded on the Flop
Seat 4: FPau folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: RonnieFish showed [3c 2c] and lost with a pair of Sixes
ChiefLink31: wtf ?
RonnieFish: draw

Unless he is trying to get a table image to later exploit it, this one had me absolutely baffled.

HAHAHA! Sorry that made me laugh

Only thing I can think of is flush draw but crazy calling the flop bet and even crazier raising on the turn! And then showed what an idiot he is but saying "draw" at the end!

Thats funny!

Hilarious FP, these players ROCK ! Had one last Monday, he called my pre-flop raise with Q 2 and then my all-in with a flop of 4 6 A (rainbow), I had AK, so he called an all-in with no-draws, no pair, NOTHING. I told him he was just unlucky. (LOOOOL)

It seems to me that when he didn't get the flush, he tried to take the pot by bluffing. Even if he got the flush, he has the lowest flush hand. He took a shot considering the low bets. If he was going to bluff, he should have bet more.

t1riel said:

It seems to me that when he didn't get the flush, he tried to take the pot by bluffing. Even if he got the flush, he has the lowest flush hand. He took a shot considering the low bets. If he was going to bluff, he should have bet more.

Click to expand...

Good points t1riel except it was a limit game!

These player are playing limit like the no-limit they watch on TV. It's mondo harder to bluff at limit. Especially if your opponents been calling. Also they're playing weaker hands but the strategy in no limit is that hands like 3c-2c can work in no limit because of greater implied odds.

Where do I find these guys?

he played that hand awfully but he did have flush draw of the flop

Still befuddles me of when people play suited cards especially that low of a suited connector. Some people automatically have this magical sense as well that just because they have a 36% of catching the flush on the turn that they have to bet the 36%. Then an 18% chance on the river but no matter what, bet for the flush. If the flush doesn't come like in this scenario they are out of the $17.25. Yet just think if he folded pre-flop it would have only $1.00 or folded after the flop only $2.00. .. Yet there was $6.50 in the pot after the flop.. There was a bet of $1.00 making it $7.50.. so roughly he is getting 7.5/1 to call vs his 3.6/1 on the turn.

1 raise with small suited connectors.. I personally wouldn't call it. Yet higher suited connectors are a definate call with just 1 raise. Then his pot odds changed with the 2 dollar bet so he raised to make sure he was getting correct odds.