Sort of Theory Post
 

5/10 NL 10 handed

1 limper (1kish stack), I raise to 40 with A10 off, he calls. 2 to the flop.

Pot: 95ish
Flop: A83 rainbow

He bets 100, I make it 300

I played this hand at 5/10 NL and my friend asked me why I raised the flop here and his follow up was shouldn't I raise the flop with any 2? Do most people raise this flop with any 2 cards? What range of hands would most people raise this flop? Would anyone fold/call this flop?

The real theory question I'm considering right now is if stacks are deep enough and you're the preflop raiser and are bet into, should you raise barring a read?

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

Raising this flop with AT is bad, just call. You're folding out every hand you beat and getting yourself into trouble when he has you beat.

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

[ QUOTE ]
Raising this flop with AT is bad, just call. You're folding out every hand you beat and getting yourself into trouble when he has you beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds like a good time to raise any two [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Note - don't have time to answer in depth right now - maybe later...

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

gomberg,
that is the case every time you raise any two.

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

I would either raise or fold the flop, I think that calling is the worst option.

If you just call, then he bets 300 on the turn, what are you going to do? Fold? If so then you should just fold the flop. If you are going to call it's going to end up costing you more than if you had raised the flop.

Depending on the opponent folding might be best, but if you want to play the hand you should raise because ...

If you are ahead, he might fold (not always though) but you stop him from drawing for free. If he has A2 and he will only put more money in the pot if a 2 comes on the turn, raising is clearly correct. If you are ahead and just call, he might bet the turn, which puts you in a tough spot.

If you are behind and he calls with AK, he will most likely check the turn ... which give you 2 cards for 300 as opposed to having to call 300 on the turn (and still not knowing what is going on). This sort of thing happens a lot ... sometimes the best way to control the pot size is to raise the flop. Also if you raise he may fold the best hand.

I wouldn't raise with any 2 because the times when he calls (which will probably be pretty often) will cost too much and you won't have the outs to make it less expensive.

However, if you do raise with any 2 and he folds you must throw your cards down and yell "Pachenga!!!"

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

Ok, seeing as I'm the one responsble for creating this fascinating debate I must chime in.

I think the situation I'm most curious about is, raising with any two or not. I'm not sure I see a huge difference with raising A10 and raising any two when bet into like this. Granted I don't play 5/10 and I'm a huge attiyeh-esque donkey, but what are the chances this goes to showdown? If you raise here, if called or raised (especially raised), aren't you resigned to the fact that you are beat. How comfortable are you putting any more money into the pot past the flop? Wouldn't the same thing apply with any 2. If he checks the turn, are you willing to push push here with just A10?

Ezra, you say you wouldn't raise any two here because when he calls, it will cost too much and you won't have the outs. But aren't you done with the hand anyway when he does call, just as the case if you had any two? If you are gonna raise with A10 here post flop when you are the pfr, why wouldn't you do it with a hand like KQ or JJ. I understand showdown value, but like I said, does this hand really go to showdown often?

I do agree with yelling after raising with any 2 and having him fold, but I beleive it calls for the Mattias level "YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW!"

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

youre turning top pair into seven deuce!

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

I dislike calling cause if you call here, I think you're going to get run over most of the time. Would you call here with AK? How do you proceed if he bets the turn? Are you hoping this hand gets checked down after the flop?

When I'm raising with A10 here, I don't necessarily expect I'm ahead. The hand range I'd likely put someone on would be:

Ax
AK, AQ, AJ, A10
pocket pair that doesn't create a set
set
2 pair

I think causes AQ and worse to fold. I'd expect a reraise from a set and 2 pair. AK might just call. Obviously if someone reraises, I'm folding.

If I figure any hand worse than A10 will fold, the question becomes, why wouldn't I raise with any 2 here?

One reason I orignally thought of is what Ezra pointed out, that with A10 I have outs, while with 27 I have none. But, I think a lot of the time I'm getting reraised here by 2 pair and I'm drawing dead to a set, the only hands I have outs against are hands I'm really looking to fold this flop (although, I doubt Ak folds this flop cause people usually play AK very stubbornly). I'd love to get more comments whether raising any 2 is valuable when bet into.

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

Well - it's profitable to raise any two here but exploitable...

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

I like calling, but I think those who say raise with any 2 are forgetting that this is a raised pot (hero is PFR) and I do NOT think a raise w/ ATC to 300 or whatever is a good play.

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

call is best since worse hands fold. It's really as simple as that. And no, don't raise any 2 here. It's not the right board for it.

Then again, if the action went check, you bet, call. Turn brick he bets then I like a raise against the right opponent.

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

Raising here is very, very bad. There is no options here besides calling, it's as standard as standard gets, and you should never deviate from it.

For those saying this is a good spot to raise with any two, think again. This is a spot where you will raise with VERY few hands, pretty much not a single one except A8/A3, and not those ones all the time either. With sets you'll raise turn when he leads into you instead, since, for example, a lot of the time a flushdraw or a straightdraw has appeared, and your raise can be a draw as well, as opposed to raising this flop which pretty much narrows your hand into two. Or perhaps he's leading into you with an 8 or A(bad), you have 33, and an 8/A hits turn. Now you're probably gonna stack this player.

So, a raise with any two is very bad here since you'll either be on air or have a (badly played) monster. Either way, he's folding all worse hands than yours, and calling with all better. Then, how are you gonna proceed? Sure, you might say that "if I can always get people to fold weak aces etc when raising such a dry flop with any two since it narrows my hand into a monster, isn't that good?" Sure, until someone picks up on it and realizes you'll have one of those hands very rarely, and goes on 3-bet pushing you with air which you can never call. Or just the fact that when they do call you'll be in a large pot on turn with a weak hand and/or air.

Noop, raising here sucks, it's an autocall, nothing more to it.

Furthermore, someone said that if someone check/calls you on this flop and bets into you on a brick all of a sudden you should definately raise..I cannot disagree more. With that action, e.g check, check, you bet 100, first guy calls, turn is a deuce completing the rainbow and the guy bets 250ish into you, I'm probably just folding, I except him to fire river on any card any way and I can't call that. Either that or I'm calling and folding river, but I don't really like that too much either since he will most likely fire river making you fold. RAISING a turn like that is grouse. In this case it's a real brick, but if it came down with a flushdraw on turn or something, you'll have to call, since a very viable line with, say, for example an 78 suited would be call c/c flop and bet if turn brings the guy a flushdraw as well.

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, someone said that if someone check/calls you on this flop and bets into you on a brick all of a sudden you should definately raise..I cannot disagree more. With that action, e.g check, check, you bet 100, first guy calls, turn is a deuce completing the rainbow and the guy bets 250ish into you, I'm probably just folding, I except him to fire river on any card any way and I can't call that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I make stop and goes like this all the time and this type of thinking is why I keep doing them (w/ air and once in a while a monster)

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

to paraphrase a comment of yours, MDMA, "raising here with any 2 is bad because you often have air or you occasionally have a badly played monster." and later "he folds anything worse than AT to your raise."

sooooooo confuuuuuuuused.

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

I explained my reasoning as well. It will against non-thinking players who will never pick up on what you are doing/not understand the fact that raising here signals a very very narrow range of hands. A thinking player will understand this very soon and adjust accordingly, and then you will be in a world of hurt. Or, he might just understand it right away and not believe you would (stupidly enough) fastplay a set like this and then you're in a world of hurt right away. Raising here has zero value, and excuse me, since english isn't my native language I sometimes sound confusing. I hope you can bear with me.

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

waaah waaah waaah english isn't my native language so let me try to make people feel bad for saying they don't understand me. hey, stfu. i never said anything about your english so comments like that reallllllly get to me. all i said was you made two logically inconsistent statements, which is still true, and you've done nothing to refute that. it is impossible, when talking about the same opponent (in the current hand, not over a stretch of hands), to say raising any 2 is bad and they will not continue without a huge hand. that's all. your english is fine, don't be so self-deprecating. it's your logic that needs work, sir.

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

Well, alright I'll rephrase. First of all I'm never talking about just the current hand, I find that sort of thinking to be wrong, it's like saying you dont have to push in certain situations with draws to get paid of with sets, when your current hand is a set and you're wondering how to play it, for example. Furthermore, alright, let's say it like this, raising with AT sucks (because of the obvious statement that worse hands fold and better hands call) and raising with any two (e.g air), in an isolated event, is better. And, against a non-thinking player I wouldn't mind it since you could probably repeat now and again without him thinking much about it, just folding his hand.

What I am saying is that a thinking player will understand that there is foolish to play a monster strong here, and will be very suspicious of your bet. I, for one, if I noted a raise in a scenario like this more than once from the same player wouldn't mind going on with air here, granted that the player has solid reasoning in a lot of other situations, making it likely that his raise is often a bluff. A maniac might raise AK for value here for example, and he's not gonna release his hand.

I don't know whether I'm able to explain this much further, it's just that a raise here has to be credible, and a raise here pretty much isn't, that's why I don't like it. That in addition to the fact that any real hands you have would be disastrous to raise because of the obvious better hands call/worse hands fold, which is pretty much why raising isn't credible in the first place.

I'm sorry you misunderstood me, I thought it was unclear at that point what was confusing, sorry if that got to you, no need to get aggravated is there?

2 Questions
 

2 Questions for everyone who advocates a call on the flop.

1) What do you do if bet into again on the turn? I'd assume fold, right? If the turn goes check check and he bets 300 (or even 150) on the river, do you fold? Is the plan here to make this one call and hope to check it down?

2) What range of hands do you think someone would bet into you given that it's a non-draw heavy board? Is the type of player who bets into you with, let's say, AQ, the same type of player looking to play a big pot with AQ?

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

[ QUOTE ]
Either way, he's folding all worse hands than yours, and calling with all better.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you want to play a big pot oop with AQ, AJ here (I wouldn't even like playing a big pot with AK here)? So those are some key hands that I think might fold here given the raise.


The argument that a thinking player will pick up on your play seems like it could be true for any situation. Let's say your standard practice is to just call the flop but fold to a turn bet. If he realizes this, in any heads up pot, he will just fire two barrells against you. My guess, as a thinking player yourself, you'll adjust. That's why I said, barring any reads in this situation. Once this situation plays out a few times (which I'm guessing is unlikely unless you play a really long session with the same player and the same player continues the same strategy), you'd need to change your strategy too.

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

Most players don't make weak leads like this. You have to figure out what it means from any individual player. There are some players who will fire when an ace flops on a dry board, figuring you'll have to lay down any hand that doesn't have an ace in it. (These are the same types of players who will lead at baby boards to get you to lay down AK.) If you're up against that guy, you want to raise the flop. If instead opponent is a stubborn donkey with something he doesn't want to lay down (pp, Ax, 8x), then your move is to raise the turn and rep the ace (which in fact you have), since raising the flop will not always push him out. Also, raising the turn with an ace protects the times you will bluff/rep the ace by calling a flop weak lead with air and betting/raising the turn. These concepts are more important for a shorthanded game, where both players will often miss the flop in a raised pot. This is full ring, so it's much more likely that one or both of you has an ace here.

Raising the flop will let you determine if he's a tricky player with a big hand (b/c he will come over the top and you will fold), and that's about it.

Call, reevaluate on turn.

P.S. not a great hand to raise with pre, but you know that

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

Yes, you can make those kind of hands fold in this spot, and I said that doing it with air has some merit just because of this, but I still don't like it since the raise either pinpoint you on air or monster. E.g raising with AT here is the same as raising with air, because any hand AQ,AJ and worse will most probably fold, hence AT is pretty the same as air.

Only reason I don't like a raise is because I don't think it's credible at all barring like two specific hands, since you would likely slowplay all monsters until turn and just flatcall. I'd raise here with air here very very seldom, to accomodate the fact that I seldom should have one of the few hands that would actually raise here. And, when I do, it will always be either one of these hands or air; never something like AT. Needless to say, you cant flatcall your monsters and raise with air here routinely.

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

Hi AB,

Totally depends on your image. If you are seen as TAG, raising here with AT doesn't accomplish much that's good. If you're viewed as LAG-er it makes more sense.

If you have any 2 (that's a bluff), I think raising works for either TAG or LAG; better for TAG.

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi AB,

Totally depends on your image. If you are seen as TAG, raising here with AT doesn't accomplish much that's good. If you're viewed as LAG-er it makes more sense.

If you have any 2 (that's a bluff), I think raising works for either TAG or LAG; better for TAG.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cero, I think raising with any 2 in this spot is v bad.

Here's why

Hero is pfr. He is expected to auto bet the flop.

The flop is ace high and dry, so it is VERY likely a cbet will be performed; no reason for most to check behind (unless hero is vanessa selbst)

A big hand may c/r, but typically a lead in this spot IS a big hand, as a c/r is so powerful on this dry a board - Also, due to the ace, ppl dont (generally) bluff into pfr who generally will have that ace. (and firing all streets into what you expect is top pair or better isnt exactly common practice)

if a big hand check calls it's too easy for an opponenty to exercise pot control (or merely shut down w/o an ace anyway) for the turn, thus losing the (set, 2pair) shot of a big pot

anyway, I interpret a lead in this spot a big hand enough (set or 2 pair) > X% of bluff (like underpair or gutshot etc., which will fold to a raise) not making laying ~300 to pick up the ~200 or so worth it (even with say 2 to 4 redraw outs, it's a v weak semibluff)

imo w/ absolutely nothing I would fold here. I would laugh if they did have a big hand (which i suspect they do often, as said) as I would pretty much fire away, so they lost the chance to win extra money.

when i'm tilting i will raise here, but when I tilt I lose money, so raising is bad!!! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

w/ AT though you're not afraid of a 2 or 4 outer, and allowing them the chance to fire w/ worse is fine

and to james/jablue (i think this hand pertains to the A8 hand) if I call this street I am prepared to call down turn and river; I'm prepared to fold at some point; and I'm prepared to raise for value or a bluff if the situation and cards fall that way. but for the flop, the plan and play is to call w/ AT and fold junk.

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

Thank you Bobbo, well put, this is what I was trying to say with my posts, without really suceeding as good as you.

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

Hi Bobbo,

Valid points all. However, I still disagree.

You say a lead here is a big hand, mostly. I say it's a draw or a test, mostly. Aggressive players will lead into you on a dry, ace-high board with a draw (or even with air at times), because they know that if you have a hand like JJ, it puts you in a tough spot. They will also do it often with a medium ace like AJ and down, because you are a favorite to not have an ace, and to find out where they're at. Many players will muck that medium ace if you raise. While it's true that you want all of the aces smaller than AJ in, you still will not win much more from them even if you just call. However, and this leads me to the main reason I recommend raising here, you might lose a lot more with it if they make aces up on the turn.

The biggest reason to raise the flop here with AT and with any 2, IMO, is that an opponent who makes this lead into you will often have a hand that can't call a raise, but which will not put another dime in the pot UNLESS the turn card slaughters you. That is, they are leading with a gutshot, or 2nd or 3rd pair, or a baby Ace. If you smoothcall and they hit on the turn, you won't know it, and they'll bet again. If not, they'll probably check-fold, if you don't give them a free card again.

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

cero, all good points, just a flaw in logic -

[ QUOTE ]
The biggest reason to raise the flop here with AT and with any 2, IMO, is that an opponent who makes this lead into you will often have a hand that can't call a raise, but which will not put another dime in the pot UNLESS the turn card slaughters you. That is, they are leading with a gutshot, or 2nd or 3rd pair, or a baby Ace. If you smoothcall and they hit on the turn, you won't know it, and they'll bet again. If not, they'll probably check-fold, if you don't give them a free card again.

[/ QUOTE ]

IF this holds true, floating with junk is much more attractivc then raising the flop. Because a flop raise will run you into the big hands which dont fold to the initial raise, but still allows you to escape w/o losing that additional money by waiting until the turn

basically, it's options theory..

where we disagree (and upon further thought, I think you're right, but I'm not positive to what degree) is what a lead by a villain into the pfr on an ace high dry board means.

If it was draw heavy, I would weight more semibluffs, marginal hands which dont want to give a freebie, etc. but the fact is there are so few gutshots abound (if we even give opponent credit for being in there oop with a 1 gapper!) makes me think sure, could be a weak top pair testing itself, (which may not even fold to a raise; the same people that lead out "for information" will be the same to convince themselves your raise is what it is, a bluff representing ak+) but most often a big hand which seeks to stack top pair by seizing initiative.

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

Also, there was a hand in the archives where Limon agrees with what you say it was almost the exact scenario, except full ring; AT is a raise here because if opponent will not put another dime unless they improve, (btw, I dont feel this is ever the case, and thus this stipulation is stupid) the cost of calling a pot bet on turn and river (roughly 9x your initial call of the flop bet) will nto outweighthe "bluff" equity (he didnt put it in the math terms, others did, but this is in essence what he said)

this is NOT the case though; if it was a LIMPED pot I agree totally - what you taught me a while back about overrepping your hand in limped pots is one of the most valuable pieces of information I've learned - but here since we're the raiser, I strongly believe over representing your hand is a bad thing.

furthermore, reason it's bad to do with junk (and this is a secondary point) is that as said I dont think you pick up the pot enough to make the bluff a long term profitable one (even showing it down isnt going to help much, metagame wise)

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thank you Bobbo, well put, this is what I was trying to say with my posts, without really suceeding as good as you.

[/ QUOTE ]

thanks md =)

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

hah, another thing; flop is A 8 3. only gutshots that could be here (for him to be leading) are 45, 24, and 25. I think 24 and 25 are not in his hand range. thus this is one of the most benign (sp?) boards wrt semibluffs. Simply, ti's either a straight out bluff (and here A4 is a bluff relative to our actual hand strength, as we outkick him!) or 2pair +.

If we raise to 300, (lets review the math to bring us back to original point) pot had his 100 bet + 95 inital. So 195, I'm rounding to even 200 for simple terms. so we need to pick up the pot +200prof vs -300loss, or 2x - 3(1-x) = 0 for breakeven.
2x - 3 + 3x = 0
5x = 3
x = 3/5, so we need to pick it up 60%+ (figure is a tiny bit higher given just 95 dead, not 100)

IF he folds to the flop raise (it's too tough to analyze if he ever calls a raise w/ a worse hand, suhc as 45 or A5) - going on the stipulation he calls w/ better folds worse (which I dont agree, but then again you people would all be surprised at what loose calls I can get when I go crazy) he must therefore be "bluffing" 60% of the time.

ON THIS BOARD, since there are basically no semibluffs, he is NOT bluffing 60% of the time!

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

Hi Bobbo,

Basically, you disagree with my premise that a bet here is weak much more than it is strong. From there, we don't have many places we can go.

You mentioned that there are few gutshots on the A83 board--2 things: I said in my post that the bet could be a gutshot, a pair, or an Ace. So 45, 89, 99, A7--these are all possibilities IMO. The 2nd thing is that it's a theory post, so I don't think Adam meant to inquire about your action on the dryest board of all time only; I could be wrong about that, but in any case I was thinking of a generic "dry flop".

As far as floating with any two goes, we're dealing with 2 arguments here: what to do with AT, and what to do with dikshit. Detailing my reasons for raising with dikshit would take longer than I want to spend, but basically, it would be to balance the legit raises (such as the AT/AK/top two etc) I'll be making.

Like Strassa, I love it when I know that if I lead a certain flop into a certain pre-flop raiser, he will not raise me NO MATTER WHAT HE HOLDS. He'll call with AT/ JJ to see what I do; he'll call with junk to take the pot away on the turn if I check; he'll call with AA to raise me on the turn. That makes a bet with a gutshot or bottom pair look fairly attractive, especially if you throw in that I can possibly read his bet size/action if I check the turn and still win the pot sometimes.

Anyway, I like where this thread has gone; nice posts Adam, Bobbo, et al.

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

[ QUOTE ]
IF he folds to the flop raise (it's too tough to analyze if he ever calls a raise w/ a worse hand, suhc as 45 or A5) - going on the stipulation he calls w/ better folds worse (which I dont agree, but then again you people would all be surprised at what loose calls I can get when I go crazy) he must therefore be "bluffing" 60% of the time.

ON THIS BOARD, since there are basically no semibluffs, he is NOT bluffing 60% of the time!

[/ QUOTE ]


I think that the words above of Bobbo's that I put in bold are a key element in determining what is the best play against more aggressive players. If you can in fact get villain to fold a better hand, but not a monster, as in like AJ, then you really have accomplished something with a flop raise. Even if he does call with a marginally better hand, he has to fade big bets on the turn and river if he doesn't improve and wants to see the showdown, which is why he generally won't call if he is tighter as well as aggressive. And this all assumes that you don't always just go into check/calling mode with AK in position on this flop as the preflop raiser, so that he won't know you don't have that.

So I agree with cero that villain's flop lead here is weak, as in a bad A, lower pp than A, or a semi-bluff. And this means you should tend to raise an aggressive player here but not a passive one, including occasionally with air to balance your legit hands. Again with the point that if you can get a marginally better hand to fold you are more right to raise, then raising with 77 yourself in this spot and getting 99 or a weak A to fold has accomplished something very good. The only problem is that if he catches on to such plays when the stacks are deep enough, then you will see him calling your raise and leading out on the turn again more often including with really big and improved hands.

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Bobbo,

Basically, you disagree with my premise that a bet here is weak much more than it is strong. From there, we don't have many places we can go.

[/ QUOTE ]

true. But I'm pretty much hovering over the % it is a real hand (that wont be folded) vs a semibluff, marginal hand (which is folded) or outright bluff. this is tough to evaluate [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]


You mentioned that there are few gutshots on the A83 board--2 things: I said in my post that the bet could be a gutshot, a pair, or an Ace. So 45, 89, 99, A7--these are all possibilities IMO. The 2nd thing is that it's a theory post, so I don't think Adam meant to inquire about your action on the dryest board of all time only; I could be wrong about that, but in any case I was thinking of a generic "dry flop".


[/ QUOTE ]

true

[ QUOTE ]

As far as floating with any two goes, we're dealing with 2 arguments here: what to do with AT, and what to do with dikshit. Detailing my reasons for raising with dikshit would take longer than I want to spend, but basically, it would be to balance the legit raises (such as the AT/AK/top two etc) I'll be making.

Like Strassa, I love it when I know that if I lead a certain flop into a certain pre-flop raiser, he will not raise me NO MATTER WHAT HE HOLDS. He'll call with AT/ JJ to see what I do; he'll call with junk to take the pot away on the turn if I check; he'll call with AA to raise me on the turn. That makes a bet with a gutshot or bottom pair look fairly attractive, especially if you throw in that I can possibly read his bet size/action if I check the turn and still win the pot sometimes.

Anyway, I like where this thread has gone; nice posts Adam, Bobbo, et al.

[/ QUOTE ]
Hmm, I still wont budge on this point. It takes far too long for a metagame to develop - (so for strassa at 25/50, it makes sense, as he really knows his players - but 3/6 to 10/20, the player pool is so large most players will not learn of your exploitable strategies until you've already won alot of skalansky dough) so in isolation, which is the "right player often," floating w/ the junk is still better then openly raising the flop, even to disguise your hand strength (as in when you do raise AT)

I like where it's gone too [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

Bobby and Cero,

You've both made some really good points. One particular important aspect is that, as I think Cero pointed out, this type of situation isn't that common (although, I find it becoming more and more common). Obviously there are a wide range of hands that a player might do this with.

Poker is a game of gaining information. I still don't see much value in calling with A10, but I can see valid reasons for folding with air/hands like A10. However, when you make this play, you can't really guage what kind of a hand someone is doing this with. If you make the raise, you definitely can get a better idea. I guess that brings up the other question Bobby pointed out, how much will I see the same players at 5/10 or 10/20 games that gaining this information will matter?

This is a lot of thinking. My head hurts.

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

call flop, check behind turn, pot river...

Re: Sort of Theory Post
 

If someone bets the turn? Fold? If it goes check on the turn and the opponent pots the river? Call? Calling the flop works out conveniently if your opponent closes his eyes and prays the hand gets checked down. It works out less conveniently if the opponent is more agressive.