Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

even in the rare instance where say like the board has 3 to a straight flush and ur opponent holds the nut flush, and u shove the river on him for like 1000 times the pot, theoretically u should still have a bluff there some % of the time, albeit a extremely extremely small %

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

D2themfi,

I believe that by having a balanced game plan you are trying to say that you want to play in an unexploitable fashion; is that correct? I posit that we do not want to play unexploitably, we want to play optimally and there is a fundemental difference between the two.


Betgo,

I do not believe that we should intentionally ever define our hand (as was suggested in the other thread) but that there is not necessarily something wrong with playing in a transparent manner against 95% of opponents.

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

balance does not equal optimal or unexploitable. It is impossible(to the best of my knowledge) to solve holdem and create an unexploitable gameplan or perfectly optimal

What I was trying to point out is that OP is asking whether it is correct to ever "define" our hand. I took that to mean in a hypothetical situation we make a bet or raise where we can only have one specific hand aka the nuts. And the way I was disputing this was pointing out that for every bet we make for value in a spot we should be bluffing a certain % of the time as well, thus never allowing our opponent to "define our hand" to one specific hand. He may knw our frequencies and thus be able to make optimal choices. but theoretically our opponents should never be able to say that we will do "x" action with only one hand and one hand only

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

i always say no and try not to do this but im starting to believe that sometimes it just saves chips.
For example:

I flat a button raise with J [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]T [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] lets say 60bbs deep.


Flop A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]J [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]9 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

check call 2/3 pot.

Turn: 2 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

Leading the turn or flop, even though its not really for value or as a bluff makes the hand so much easier to play that im starting to believe maybe its okay.

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

I was reading an older thread in HSNL that mentioned its OK if your opponent knows what you have as long as you play correctly knowing that they know what you have. Thread is here.

I usually try to undefine my hand as much as possible while still extracting value: making my weak hands look stronger and my strong hands look weaker. When I have a great hand and feel my opponent has a strong second best hand, or when I think he is pot committed, I will "define" my hand with a big bet that I expect to be called the large majority of the time.

Defining your hand seems like a more valuable concept in limit HE since raising with one pair is so much more common to lower odds for chasers, even though they often come along anyway. In NL pot odds are so easily manipulated that there's less need to do this.

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

[ QUOTE ]
And the way I was disputing this was pointing out that for every bet we make for value in a spot we should be bluffing a certain % of the time as well, thus never allowing our opponent to "define our hand" to one specific hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this statement.

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

well it depends are we defining our hand at the top of our range or the bottom of the range. And how does that effect the given context.

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And the way I was disputing this was pointing out that for every bet we make for value in a spot we should be bluffing a certain % of the time as well, thus never allowing our opponent to "define our hand" to one specific hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

care to explain why?

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

I don't think the OP asked a very good question. What do you mean by defining our hand?

If you mean, turn it over so the Villain knows what we have?

And since you don't mean that, then what do you mean?

Re: Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?
 

There are definitely times where it's good to define your hand. These usually occur in satellites or in some situation where due to the prize structure you would like everyone to fold, and it's also in their best interests to fold. In cash games, where its more of a zero-sum game, it probably never makes sense for you to simply announce to your opponent what your hand is.