Re: theory question
 

the advantage would lie in knowing their cards without them knowing you dont know your own cards

Re: theory question
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are overlooking the risk that, if you just call, the villian will not put in any further chips unless his hand becomes better than yours, and also that you are not able to push him off bottom pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with all that you've said, just more strongly than you do. However, I do disagree with the above quote. If we call here villian has had the final say preflop and is representing a hand far, far greater than he has. He will therefore continuation bet nearly every flop. Crucially, if the flop comes K,J,4 he'll usually c-bets and if we push him AI he'll usually fold even though he's ahead - he'd need a very good read to call here with just 5 outs and in the knowledge he could be drawing thinner or dead already.

In short I think he'll bluff more chips on the flop often and I also think he'll not showdown with less than two-pair very often. This is our key advantage - the fact that he'll bluff often, not showdown much and (crucially) that he'll bluff/semi-bluff but still fold to our re-bluff even though he won't know he's just made a major mistake.

Re: theory question
 

[ QUOTE ]
No, this is a call. Your informational advantage here has a tremendous value. You're immune to bluffs and have position, that's worth quite a bit.

If you shove here, you're going to take down the pot and only get 1,200 from his stack. If you call, you'll have position on this guy and there's a chance you get a lot more out of him. It's going to be very hard for him to hit a flop at all, and you should have an easy time pushing him off a 1 pair hand or weak draws easily enough when he hits those.

If stacks were smaller, then it would be more in your interest to end the hand.


[/ QUOTE ]
Your analysis and the other one you gave here seem to be slanted towards this sort of hand being an ongoing occurance. OP seems to indicate this is a one off.

I think to get the most money out of this situation you would really have the know the psychological make up of villain. For example, maybe a min-reraise would induce an all-in bluff.

So if you weren't thinking this through as a one time only hand, do you have any modifications to your analysis?

Re: theory question
 

Acevader,

I'm not saying I think it's likely, I'm saying you still have to acknowledge there's a risk to your preflop equity if you take the call line.



POF,

[ QUOTE ]
I think to get the most money out of this situation you would really have the know the psychological make up of villain. For example, maybe a min-reraise would induce an all-in bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe, but again I don't want him to all-in bluff. He still has a reasonable amount of showdown equity which limits my EV - which is less than the EV I think you could reasonably expect taking a flop.

If the flop doesn't improve him and he c-bets even half the pot, shoving on him will force a fold. The pot will be larger than the EV you would have had getting him all in preflop. If he checks it and the board is safe you could then do your min raise or check behind to induce an AI bluff or turn raise depending on the player and read, etc.

You just need to get more than 2k EV in the hand to make it more profitable than an AI showdown, which you're probably not getting him to go for in the first place.

As far as modifying based on reads, there's not much I'd do differently preflop. The only real exception I can think of would be if

1) I knew this player wouldn't put any more money in unless he hit AND

2) he couldn't fold a flopped 3 or 4 or hand where he's ahead or is otherwise correct to call

In this case a tight-weak calling station inadvertently wouldn't be giving me the implied odds I need to give me more value than the showdown (or probably even get shoving PF)

Re: theory question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Acevader, I'm not saying I don't think it's likely, I'm saying you still have to acknowledge there's a risk to your preflop equity if you take the call line.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course there is a risk. He might make some stupid hero call with just a low pair on a scary board or actually hit a strong hand we know we can't get him to fold.

But that's like saying you should push AI with AA on the BTN to secure the assured profit from the BB+SB. You'll take down a little profit each time but unquestionably the better line is a normal raise even though it incurs a degree of risk in that you can be beaten or stacked on the flop/turn/river.

Those that say to push preflop have a tournament mentality - they see a pot grow to a certain size and then they just want it and are happy for their profit. Cash games as we know are about overall expected value in the long run and as Gonso and I are saying, whilst riskier, the most profitable move here is to see a flop and usually let villain run his bluff.

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe, but again I don't want him to all-in bluff. He still has a reasonable amount of showdown equity which limits my EV - which is less than the EV I think you could reasonably expect taking a flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree, if we get AI we'd be 60/40 with $12,000 equity in the $20,0000 pot thus an EV of +$2000.

If we take a flop by calling we have a pot of around $2400 on the flop and if villain c-bets most of the time for $2000 it creates a pot with $3200 of villains money in it. If we take that by bluff/having the best hand around 75% of the time (reasonable I feel) then that's +$2400. If we consider him potentially bluffing more or getting AI with lesser hands, etc, etc we can gain even more. So again, taking the 'see a flop line' would likely have a higher expectation.

Re: theory question
 

call