thoughts on cbetting AK in position

[btmagnetw]

[ QUOTE ]
These are all valid points but when I think about sklansky's fundamental theory of poker which goes something like

if you have the best hand you should bet


[/ QUOTE ]a non playing uNL player is about to correct you.

that's not what the FToP says. it says when you play a hand the same way as if you knew the player's hand, you profit. so if you know your opponent has nothing but also know that he's prone to c-r you when he doesn't believe you, then you should check behind, or at least reraise his c-r.

[ipokeder]

help me i'm drowning

[exalted]

[ QUOTE ]
so if you know your opponent has nothing but also know that he's prone to c-r you when he doesn't believe you, then you should check behind

[/ QUOTE ]

Uhhhhh.... if you could see his hand, then the optimal play for you would be to bet for value, if he C/Rs you, you can call to induce bluffs on later streets or RR AI for value, depending on the situation.

Checking with AK when you know you could have the best hand is a mistake according to the fundamental theorem, but it is a smaller mistake than betting, and having to fold the best hand to a semibluff raise by our opponent.

I think it isn't bad to check AK sometimes, but mostly with the intention of giving up (on wet boards, 78T, etc). 23T I'm betting there 80% in position with AK.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
that's not what the FToP says. it says when you play a hand the same way as if you knew the player's hand, you profit.

[/ QUOTE ]
If the cards were face up on the table, the right play would be for the better hand to bet and charge the weaker hand to draw. Grim's synopsis is right.