Pot sweeteners?

[J_V]

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?

[flawless_victory]

ya, pretty standard.

[El Diablo]

JV,

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

[Allinlife]

[ 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?

[J_V]

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.

[JaBlue]

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.

[Kassem D.]

they are particularly useful at loose-passive tables.

[IronUnkind]

[ 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?

[edge]

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.

[J_V]

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.