30 game, 2 cold to me, I have AT on Axx

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
When someone openlimps UTG+1 it is likely they are a bad player. The average 30/20 will be strongly inclined to iso-raise. I believe they are raising 66, 77, A6s, A7s, ATo+ nearly 100% of the time preflop. I think the most likely hand we are behind is 67s, which is a far less likely holding than the hands we are ahead that still raise this flop (weak As, fds, oesds, lower pair, pair + gs...). Yes, the open-limper could have AJ, AK, or AA, or whatever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, what's he raising with then? If he isn't overlimping with A7, then he isn't overlimping with A8. Something like 87s? Possible, but raising there is not a great play when a passive UTG limper bets into a large field in a small pot; some guys will do it anyway but others won't. A strong draw is certainly possible, but we're not in especially great shape against a strong draw and a third hand that has some material chance of being better than ours.

[ QUOTE ]
Case 1:
We check, an early player bets, and there are callers. If the players are fairly standard, we have an equity edge, and should raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't have as much of an equity edge as you think when there are multiple players in the pot. Because we get drawn out on a lot when ahead, we don't have to be behind very often to push the expectation on the second bet that goes into the pot into negative territory. And if a third bet goes into the pot, we're in a lot of trouble but are probably stuck calling down because we've made the pot huge.

[ QUOTE ]
If the early player who would have bet has a hand that is on the stronger side of his betting range, he may raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I almost want him to raise. Our bet looks fairly donkish coming out of the blinds, and our hand is a little underrepresented. I think you'll see both worse made hands (A8) and draws raising here fairly often, and his raise helps us to protect our hand.

[ QUOTE ]
This doesn't factor in times when our opponents 3bet

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you not factor in the 3-bet? Of course check-raising is better if you can't get 3-bet!

A huge part of the rationale for betting out instead of check-raising is that if we get and bet raised, we're doing just fine and have a very easy calldown, but if we check-raise and get 3-bet, we're in [censored] of trouble.

[ QUOTE ]
Now let's consider case 2: We check and a late player bets.

The late bettor's range is even weaker than the early bettor's range. We have a clear equity edge, so raising for protection and value should be standard. Forcing players who would have called one bet to fold a share of equity or make bad calls for 2 bets is a good thing. Well what if we bet, get calls, and the late bettor raises? His raising hand is towards the top of his late betting range for made hands, + the same strong draws. Usually we will no longer have an equity edge and cannot reraise for value or protection. We call with significantly lower equity than we have with the c/r (the value gained from extra flop bets going in from other players should be negligible, or negative). As with the early bettor scenario, if we lead and everyone calls, but a late player WOULD have bet, the late player's range is very weak, and we would have gained if we could have c/rd.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that check-raising is better in this scenario. But it's worse IMO in the first scenario, and there's the third scenario of the flop getting checked around, which is HUGELY negative EV when it happens.

[ILOVEPOKER929]

Im too lazy to read the discussion here about check/raising the flop vs betting out. I vote it doesnt matter. I think both lines run very close in expectation.