rethinking a standard bet spot
 

You open A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] from MP, button and BB call. no particular reads, but assume theyre standard online players. also, stacks are probably 100x or so. standard.

Flop is A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], SB checks.

Pot is like 11x bb, stacks are like 100x bb.

Whats the best move and why? (and like, dont post without thinking about it much, thats useless)

What if remaining stacks are 50x bb?

Re: rethinking a standard bet spot
 

easy bet. i contend the burden of proof is on you to say otherwise.

Re: rethinking a standard bet spot
 

you mean BB checks? and standard as in TAG regs, I'm assuming.
This would eliminate BB's range to suited connectors/small pairs. and therefore he could only have set/draw here. however, you having the NFD means that you have his draw dominated. I wouldn't be worried about him, much. Button, I assume, also has this range. A regular player would 3bet AA, AK, AQ(?), QQ, KK, right?

Assuming this as well, I would go ahead and bet, because 1) they'll shove their draws over you. In which case you'll pwn them. If you give them free turn/riv cards, sure they'll stack if a draw hits, but what if it doesnt? You'll miss the chance to stack em with your A high lololol.

Also, vs a set, assuming you bet pot, pot becomes 33x bb + 86bb to his shove, so you're calling 86bb to win 121bb. And this assumes he's ONLY shoving sets this way - highly unlikely AA or QQ plays this way, so only real set here is 33.


So I bet. ?

lol if this even makes sense.

Re: rethinking a standard bet spot
 

ok, i guess so...

betting wont often fold better hands, or get called by worse ones. A2 is pretty much KK here in terms of value.

The most common worst hand to be called by is a smaller flush draw. its nice to build a pot against them, but that shouldnt be much of a problem if the flush gets there anyhow.

Free cards arent really that much of a concern here, either. most cards wont take us from first to second in the hand, and its not like we have to play a huge pot if we dont improve.

Plus, checking gets bluffs sometimes too.


And if we bet, we probably have to shove over a raise, and then our stack is in and almost always behind. We may occasionally bluff off a better ace that raises, but the board being what it is, semibluffs are more in our range, so we may be called lighter.


Now i'm not committed to any particular line here, i'm just thinking maybe betting might not be the best although conventional style makes it seem like an insta-bet. I havent thought too much about later actions of either betting or checking now, but seems like checking gives us better options later too.

Re: rethinking a standard bet spot
 

but you always get monies vs draws, cuz they should be shoving here, right?

Re: rethinking a standard bet spot
 

dont have time to fully elaborate right now but i also have been considering my play with A/no kicker on A high flops.

[edit] after ive raised pre.

Re: rethinking a standard bet spot
 

[ QUOTE ]
You open A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] from MP, button and BB call. no particular reads, but assume theyre standard online players. also, stacks are probably 100x or so. standard.

i check as well given the reasons u described. we will almost never get in 100bb here with the best hand. allow others to put in money for ur draw or get a free card with top pair as well.



Flop is A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], SB checks.

Pot is like 11x bb, stacks are like 100x bb.

Whats the best move and why? (and like, dont post without thinking about it much, thats useless)

What if remaining stacks are 50x bb?

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: rethinking a standard bet spot
 

[ QUOTE ]
betting wont often fold better hands, or get called by worse ones. A2 is pretty much KK here in terms of value.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and I'm cool taking down a pot with KK. I'm fine if they fold here, too. I just think a bet makes the hand easier to play (yeah, yeah, easier is worse than most +EV, but I think they're mutual in this instance) with a lead. I don't like a check-call because I hate playing 4th with a newly possible flush out there (usually they do too without one).

And as for later +EV situations created by this play, I can't think of any. Although a B3B situation will obviously help us in the future when we're B3B'ing our monsters. I'm not too keen on the whole metagame thing apparently. What does this show? That we check-call with draws OOP? So we can check-call OOP with good hands and hope they abuse us? I don't get it. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Also, if we narrow their ranges of raising hands which give us no FE, why can't we call their flop raise and fold a blank turn (assuming he isn't massively overbetting)?

Re: rethinking a standard bet spot
 

I don't like a check-call because I hate playing 4th OOP with a turned flush.

better than playing 4th oop with a bigger pot and a turned not-flush (or deuce)?

note: said response is another reason betting isnt as good. turn always sucks when you are called, and you dont get there.

Also, if you check and turn a flush, they never expect you to have it.

Re: rethinking a standard bet spot
 

but you always get monies vs draws, cuz they should be shoving here, right?

we probably get more from draws by betting, sure.

however, what percentage of their ranges have a draw on this board? not many. we should be playing optimally against their entire range, and the great majority of their range has no draw here.