Pot sweeteners?

[edge]

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.

[LegallyBlind]

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?

[IronUnkind]

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

[JaBlue]

[ 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.

[IronUnkind]

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.

[edge]

[ 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.

[J_V]

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

[soah]

[ 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.

[IronUnkind]

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.