[M.B.E.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In a nutshell, I like my bet of 2000 because it's the cheapest way to get to the river.


[/ QUOTE ]

Given the tendency of players to check it down when a third player is all-in, isn't the cheapest way to get to the river likely to be check-check on the flop, check-check on the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a good question, and I acknowledge that most of the time, my opponent would check the flop if I check. However, those hands with which he would check are mostly the same hands that he would fold to my bet of 2000.

But suppose my opponent has a pocket pair, like 22. With a hand like that, it would be foolish for him to check behind on this flop; from his perspective after I check there would be a very high chance that his hand is currently best on the 885 flop. Now how much is he going to bet? Likely 4000 or so; certainly more than 2000.

But if I bet out 2000 rather than checking, and he has a small pocket pair, he most likely would call that bet (not raise). And then he would often check behind on the turn, suspicious that I could have trip eights, or a 5, or some other hand that beats him.

So in situations like that, where my opponent does have a "betting hand" on this flop, my play of betting 2000 is generally the cheapest way to get to the river.

In the majority of cases, when my opponent's hand is not a "betting hand" on this flop, it usually is not a "calling hand" either. So in those situations he will fold and it costs me 0 chips to get to the river.

The remainder of cases, where he has a hand that he wouldn't bet himself but he would call (or raise) my bet of 2000, are I think a small subset of his range -- mostly consisting of heart draws (and perhaps gutshot straight draws). It's only in these situations where I am paying 2000 for something that I'd otherwise get for free. The majority of the time I am either saving chips (by getting something for 2000 that would otherwise cost 4000) or getting the hand headsup at no cost.