Re: NLCash: Leading OOP
 

[ QUOTE ]
This has been wildly, wildly profitable and if I had just lead instead of CRed I'd be missing out on 0.5 PTBB's every time they had air.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're forgetting that you're also risking more by chk/raising than by leading.

Re: NLCash: Leading OOP
 

I think almost any play, executed with the right frequency against the right opponents, can be profitable. The lead OOP might be a little tough for the average player to implement, but can certainly be used successfully.

Re: NLCash: Leading OOP
 

[ QUOTE ]
You're forgetting that you're also risking more by chk/raising than by leading.

[/ QUOTE ]
In a limped pot, that's not nearly as bad as it could be in a raised pot, because you're not going to end up risking a quarter of your stack on the checkraise.

Re: NLCash: Leading OOP
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This has been wildly, wildly profitable and if I had just lead instead of CRed I'd be missing out on 0.5 PTBB's every time they had air.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're forgetting that you're also risking more by chk/raising than by leading.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's true, but it will also succeed more often (at least if you play 200NL and up).

Re: NLCash: Leading OOP
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This has been wildly, wildly profitable and if I had just lead instead of CRed I'd be missing out on 0.5 PTBB's every time they had air.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're forgetting that you're also risking more by chk/raising than by leading.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but I'm also extracting value out of air, which you can never do by leading OOP.

Re: NLCash: Leading OOP
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First, it's not a very believable bluff. Second, we lose tons of value with our strong hands.

[/ QUOTE ]
These two things cannot both be true.

If villain will call with weak holdings because it's "not a very believable bluff", then we're getting value in those situations with strong hands that we might not have got otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]
Cash-game players above 200NL have certain characteristics, many of which pertain to aggressiveness:
1) will cbet almost every pot
2) will CR (and expect to get CRed) many flops
3) will call donkbets rather light (often not raising), because CR collects their inevitable c-bet, so the range is often shifted toward draws.

Donkbetting is not as aggressive as CR (wrt to building the pot). I've seen people try to do it with [air, big draws, top pair] with limited success, because people dont tend to make huge mistakes in position. If they are calling 2 barrels of donks, then they are probably calling the flop CR (=more money in the pot in fewer streets).

**********Also, if you are donkbetting often, your check "range" can consequently become too polarized (big hands you want to CR and c/f hands), to allow villain to outplay you when you check. It is extremely difficult to balance both ranges (checking and donking), so people just focus on the checking range, since it picks up the c-bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another characteristic you didnt mention here is that a lot of 200NL and higher players will raise a flop donk bet almost automatically with a wide range. Donking is a great way to build a pot OOP if you are doing it to induce a raise. I dont advocate a donk bet if you think you will just get a call or a fold.

Re: NLCash: Leading OOP
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First, it's not a very believable bluff. Second, we lose tons of value with our strong hands.

[/ QUOTE ]
These two things cannot both be true.

If villain will call with weak holdings because it's "not a very believable bluff", then we're getting value in those situations with strong hands that we might not have got otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]
Cash-game players above 200NL have certain characteristics, many of which pertain to aggressiveness:
1) will cbet almost every pot
2) will CR (and expect to get CRed) many flops
3) will call donkbets rather light (often not raising), because CR collects their inevitable c-bet, so the range is often shifted toward draws.

Donkbetting is not as aggressive as CR (wrt to building the pot). I've seen people try to do it with [air, big draws, top pair] with limited success, because people dont tend to make huge mistakes in position. If they are calling 2 barrels of donks, then they are probably calling the flop CR (=more money in the pot in fewer streets).

**********Also, if you are donkbetting often, your check "range" can consequently become too polarized (big hands you want to CR and c/f hands), to allow villain to outplay you when you check. It is extremely difficult to balance both ranges (checking and donking), so people just focus on the checking range, since it picks up the c-bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another characteristic you didnt mention here is that a lot of 200NL and higher players will raise a flop donk bet almost automatically with a wide range. Donking is a great way to build a pot OOP if you are doing it to induce a raise. I dont advocate a donk bet if you think you will just get a call or a fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a really good point, and something that ties into exactly what Master LJ is saying about the profitability of blindly raising flop donk bets.

Re: NLCash: Leading OOP
 

So I found one specialized case yesterday.

If this guy had a decent piece of the flop (one he wasn't folding to a CR) he'd lead, if he did not, he checks behind. Donking was profitable in that I could get him to fold better air and perhaps bottom pair or something like 55 on a 86T board.

Donking OOP was actually better than CRing for the reasons stated, if he lead, it was almost with hands he was willing to showdown.

Re: NLCash: Leading OOP
 

I prefer the checkraise style myself but will throw in a few donk bluffs/value bets occasionally to mix it up. All I know is that I hate playing against guys that donk bet as often as a typical player would cbet. Default is to raise them a majority of the time but it gets annoying that I have to essentially increase my cbet size with those raises. But some players catch on and start donking only their good hands. Obviously they're much easier to beat at that point.