---

Poker Video: No Limit Hold'Em by linkwood (Micro/Small Stakes)

Time Link to 00:53:28

The Mick Flaherty top set hand. Don't you think it might be that he thinks in terms of absolute hand strength ie the difference in his mind between these two hands is that here he has top set whereas before he had two pair, and a set as we all know is better than two pair, right? So he thinks a set is worth a bet on the end whereas two pair is a check, and it doesn't really matter about board texture or action or what you might have (because he can't handread anyway).

I've seen people with this absolute strength thing own themselves bet/calling a set on, say a 4 flush board where their hand is really extremely weak but they'll bet and then call it off because they have a set.

The Mick Flaherty top set hand. Don't you think it might be that he thinks in terms of absolute hand strength ie the difference in his mind between these two hands is that here he has top set whereas before he had two pair, and a set as we all know is better than two pair, right? So he thinks a set is worth a bet on the end whereas two pair is a check, and it doesn't really matter about board texture or action or what you might have (because he can't handread anyway).

I've seen people with this absolute strength thing own themselves bet/calling a set on, say a 4 flush board where their hand is really extremely weak but they'll bet and then call it off because they have a set.

That certainly is a possibility that I wouldn't rule out. Looking at the hand now, his play is just so bizarre. He flats with aces vs two players, then leads with top set on a board where the only draw is a flush draw. This seems somewhat consistent with the type of player you describe I think. He doesn't want to lose a customer pre flop, then doesn't want to give a free card post flop to the flush draw. Seems consistent with non- or minimal thinking player.