 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
Example edit
I reinserted the example... although there is no background to work from, assuming both players are competent I disagree that checking here to induce a bluff is a valid option. An all in bet offers the opponent 5-1 odds; there's not enough money for a credible bluff. (Note Harrington on Hold'em Vol III's Negative Freeroll example, Harman vs. Zeidman, uses exactly the same pot/stack ratio's.) If there were more money remaining, I agree that checking to induce a bluff might be a defensible play.
Also it has been my experience that many individuals need an example to fully comprehend negative freeroll. It's not an intuitive concept for many players. I fully agree that the example could use some work, however I also feel it serves a useful purpose and shouldn't be excised without some sort of replacement. Macboots 01:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- The example doesn't make sense, how is the player holding the first hand losing to anything but the Qx ? He has a full house...
- The example is good, but perhaps if you used names for hypothetical players instead of terms like "this player", "betting player", etc. it would help to clarify who is doing what. Cryptography discussions use a common cast of characters for just this purpose. RandyKaelber (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC)