Leading OOP in limped pot v. Raised pot

[CobraGoat]

As we all know, this forum frowns on donk betting. That is, leading the flop out of position into the IP PreFlop raiser (that is unless we flopped a monster). And i totally agree with this as checking to the PF raiser with our TP type hands, typically, is the best way to maximize the value of our winning hand while minimizing the losses we sustain on our losers.

However, and maybe i just missed the poobah or stickied thread on this (now I'm thinking of an EPdaws post about playing OOP), what about situations when we are in the SB or BB with a nice suited connector or random broadway, couple of limpers no raises and we see a flop in an unraised pot?

For instance, in SB, we are dealt 9Tspades, MP and button limp in, we complete and BB checks. What is our best play on the following flops?

984r

954 two hearts

789r

955

Personally, I used to always check these cuz I was OOP and saw it as a not quite as bad but still kinda bad version of donkbetting.

Lately, I have found myself typically betting out on all of these flops. What are peoples thoughts in this change of play?

Overall, I think leading is better than checking OOP in an unraised pot because it increases my overall expectation due to picking up these pots more often than not and not having to wonder what I am up against if I check and the button bets pot when its checked to him etc. I used to believe that I was not maximizing the value/minimizing losses by betting out but now i think leading has a greater expectation from taking the pot down on the flop, rather than trying to navigate through the turn and river OOP when i checked the flop in hopes that my TP isn't outdrawn or wasn't beat from the get go.

As do all my theoryesque posts, I expect this thread to sink like a rock /images/graemlins/crazy.gif But I hope someone is interested enough to respond.

[Spurious]

With this type of hand i lead on all 4 flops.

[CobraGoat]

I don't know why I can't copy and past from Pokerstove but running hero's 9Thearts v. random ranges for 3 villains, I got the following equity calculations for these flops

7s8h9d- hero ~51% villains ~16.2%

9s6h6d- hero ~46.7% villains ~17.7%

9s5d4d- hero ~41.9% villains ~19.4%

Obviously, our poor position will bring these equity disparities closer together for the times we are outplayed but I can't imagine enough so leading isn't +EV overall here.

Also, I am a weak math mind so the manner in which I chose to use poker stove to calculate these ranges may be off as well.

[kaz2107]

i typically lead the flop when i hit tp from the blinds and then slow way down if i get a caller and dont improve on the turn. then if the turn checks thru i will consider a bet on the river.

this is a tough spot to generalize tho. a few different ACTUAL hands being posted would prolly b able to answere easier then this stuff. villians and stack sizes and ur image and all is rather important in these spots

[CobraGoat]

i honestly don't know how important image and stack sizes are in this spot. my point is that in general, at uNL stakes, it is more profitable for us to lead these flops then check them. If your image is so bad that you get no credit when you lead from SB into 3 players, then you are probably playing too loose /images/graemlins/wink.gif And i agree that when you get called, depending upon the texture of the flop we are slowing way down because we are now playing OOP with very little idea of what our opponent holds.

the only opponents to maybe hesitate leading into are tricky ones and honestly, there are not THAT many tough tricky players at 10, 25, and even 50nl.

I think that leading the flop with these OOP TP type hands is more profitable than checking them.

Thoughts on those equity calculations?

[mookboi]

Your question is too general, even the situation presented, because it depends on the kind of players.

Personally, I check first two flops, and donk the last two (#3 we have a good draw + TP, #4 the board is paired with low cards, great flop to bet).

Also, I dunno about all this frowning upon donk betting. I donk bet all the time. Especially into PFR TAGs, since a lot of them are like "oh [censored], donk bet, I better fold my AQ."

[kaz2107]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know why I can't copy and past from Pokerstove but running hero's 9Thearts v. random ranges for 3 villains, I got the following equity calculations for these flops

7s8h9d- hero ~51% villains ~16.2%

9s6h6d- hero ~46.7% villains ~17.7%

9s5d4d- hero ~41.9% villains ~19.4%

Obviously, our poor position will bring these equity disparities closer together for the times we are outplayed but I can't imagine enough so leading isn't +EV overall here.

Also, I am a weak math mind so the manner in which I chose to use poker stove to calculate these ranges may be off as well.

[/ QUOTE ]i would tryin to do this giving them official ranges. pick 3 random villians or wut ever and guess their limping range based on position n [censored].

like a 50 10 player is limin like top 50% of hands minus the top 10% or so since he didnt raise. so id go thru it all and see wut u find. random ranges r rather worthless cuz no one is playin a random hand.

[CobraGoat]

I think random range assignments makes the most sense. Its a limped pot, so for most villains the range probably excludes the top 10% hands and the bottom 10% hands for obvious reasons. leaving them all in with a random range assignment includes these unlikely hands but the top and bottom portions of the range cancel each other out.

yes, you could get a little more precise and take a player's trinity numbers to assign a tighter range but in all reality, unless the villain is an extreme of some sort so that we can really pin him down, can we really ever assign a super reliable PF range to each player? under normal circumstances, do you have the time to figure out each guys likely range and bet or check the flop accordingly?

i think showing how bad a TP hand beats 3 players random ranges at least helps one to decide how best to proceed, generally, in this spot.