Pot sweeteners?
 

I'm not sure what the real name is for these types of plays - bets or raises that might win me the pot right their but are not likely to, but the plan is to start to bloat the pot when I am drawing to hand that is surely best.

I was hoping you guys could tell me how effective these plays are. Obviously they should be targeted against weaker players. I'll give a few different examples. Don't focus on the specifics of the actual hand just more the idea. If this is standard no limit stuff, my bad. Assume all have 100bb or 2k for 10/20.

Two weakish limpers. I raise 3x BB to 60 w/ 66. Chances of winning the pot right here are around 5%.

5 to the flop, I have position w/ Ac4c. Flop Qc 2s 3s. Bad player in the small blind bets 70 into a 100 dollar pot. All fold to me and I call. Turn Kc. He checks. I bet 125 and expect to win the pot like 15% of the time on this street but almost never expect to get check raised.

Pretty standard?

Re: Pot sweeteners?
 

ya, pretty standard.

Re: Pot sweeteners?
 

JV,

Very standard, and just as (if not more) important to use against tough players to keep from being too readable.

Re: Pot sweeteners?
 

[ QUOTE ]

5 to the flop, I have position w/ Ac4c. Flop Qc 2s 3s. Bad player in the small blind bets 70 into a 100 dollar pot. All fold to me and I call. Turn Kc. He checks. I bet 125 and expect to win the pot like 15% of the time on this street but almost never expect to get check raised.

Pretty standard?

[/ QUOTE ]
I would like to know why you never expect to get check raised there?

also I'm kind of lost about the reason why you make this semibluff if you expect it to get called majority of the time? is it to set up for a river bluff?

Re: Pot sweeteners?
 

you are trying to get your opponent to get committed to the pot so that he makes a costly mistake later. It's easier to get paid in a 500 dollar pot than a 150 dollar pot. And with a big draw I think for every dollar I increase the pot, my return is exponential, provided I don't get blown off the pot. As for not getting check-raised, you have to make your reads.

Usually I will not try to bluff a weaker player, so it's not to set up a bluff, but against the right guy, that's part of it too.

Re: Pot sweeteners?
 

Your first situation of raising to 3BB after 2 limpers with 66 is not something that I will ever do because I am never playing AA like this... if you are willing to bet AA like this, fine, but otherwise you are giving away information about your hand.

Re: Pot sweeteners?
 

they are particularly useful at loose-passive tables.

Re: Pot sweeteners?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Two weakish limpers. I raise 3x BB to 60 w/ 66. Chances of winning the pot right here are around 5%.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's your flop play look like when one or both of the limpers call you?

Re: Pot sweeteners?
 

This idea makes no sense to me. Wasn't there a thread a few weeks ago where AZK was asking about a very similar situation, and we found out that the math makes it unprofitable every time? I play drawing hands much the same as made hands and bluffs; I don't underbet to build the pot for a draw.

Obviously, betting and raising in the two situations you detailed make lots of sense for various reasons, but would you ever make the same small bets with top hands? The second example seems the strangest. You have 12 outs (45:12 or a bit under 4:1 to hit) to a winner and you're getting 1:1 on any money you put in with no fold equity. This cannot be profitable in a vaccuum.

Re: Pot sweeteners?
 

I will never play AA like that, but that doesn't mean raising with 66 that way is wrong.

I seem to be the only one who thinks balancing your play is very overrated. The way I see it I only need to balance my play against about 5-10% of the players I see (the aware regulars) and then just take the most optimal line against every one else in every situation until I think they are catching on.

Re: Pot sweeteners?
 

I just don't see how raising small with 66 after limpers helps very much. A lot of the value in raising weak hands that will not hit the flop very often comes in taking down the pot preflop. I realize that you have the momentum and can take down the pot on the flop a good amount of the time, but you can do the same with a standard raise that you'd make with AA, and you add the chance to take it down without seeing the flop.

Re: Pot sweeteners?
 

I don't get this. You figure villian is check/calling the turn without a possibility of c/raising, but you think he will stack off if you hit your 6 on the river?

Re: Pot sweeteners?
 

He's 2.8:1 to hit on the river, not 4:1.

Re: Pot sweeteners?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I will never play AA like that, but that doesn't mean raising with 66 that way is wrong.

I seem to be the only one who thinks balancing your play is very overrated. The way I see it I only need to balance my play against about 5-10% of the players I see (the aware regulars) and then just take the most optimal line against every one else in every situation until I think they are catching on.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree for the most part that "balancing play" is overrated, but the thing is, I would personally raise in this spot so rarely to 3xBB that I think it gives too much information about my play away. And besides, I can make my normal raise in this spot with hands like 66 or J10s and still view it as a pot sweetener. Of course I also limp with those hands here too...

I like the second bet.

Re: Pot sweeteners?
 

If you always push the river when you hit (assuming 5s doesn't complete villain's flush), and you always check behind/fold when you miss, then you need opponent to call more than 18 percent of the time when you hit your outs.

If you always push river whether you hit or not, then you need opponent to fold around 60 percent of the time for this play to be profitable.

I think.

Edit: I'm referring to your second scenario here.

Re: Pot sweeteners?
 

[ QUOTE ]
He's 2.8:1 to hit on the river, not 4:1.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. My point still stands though. I suppose if you can guarantee that he'll call a pot bet on the river when you hit, and he will never be ahead of you when you hit, then it's a marginally +EV play. I don't think such a perfect situation will come about too often though.

Re: Pot sweeteners?
 

We agree then. I think a standard raise is better in the 66 hand too.

Re: Pot sweeteners?
 

[ QUOTE ]
you are trying to get your opponent to get committed to the pot so that he makes a costly mistake later. It's easier to get paid in a 500 dollar pot than a 150 dollar pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Against a lot of weak players I find the opposite is true... when they have any particular hand, they are willing to invest $x with it, and once they are forced to put more than $x in, they fold. That's probably not the thought process they use, but it's a fairly accurate description of what actually happens. It is probably related to their comfort zone (they don't want to lose more than $y on a hand, so they won't put more than $y in without a very very strong hand, and might knowingly fold hands that are small favorites). Raising against these players can be effective, but perhaps more because in big pots they begin playing much weaker and more straightforward.

Re: Pot sweeteners?
 

My 60 percent figure is wrong. I forgot to take into account the fact that villain is more likely to call a push when a non-spade hits the board.