[Spladle]

[ QUOTE ]
So Howard it appears we st8 on the free card business. I didn't say "on 4th Street". This dance between the Ace and 8 produces a lot of check/bet, check/check and CRs on 4th, 5th and 6th. I hope you're happy with my reponses concerning this.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not. If we are checked to on a later street then it will be because our equity against the ace's distribution is either > 50% or < 1% and it should be pretty easy to decide which based on his board. And in case this needs to be said again, when we are ahead of our opponent's range, we benefit from putting money in the pot.

Please provide an example of a situation where you think we are likely to both want and receive a free card.

[ QUOTE ]
You are really cutting it close here, especially when the 8 is in "call-down" mode AND has reverse implied odds; and the ACE knows it.

[/ QUOTE ]
What am I cutting close here? You never clarified.

[ QUOTE ]
The Ace can put the 8 on a much tighter range of hands and can fold anytime. So when he wins he gets the extra bet and when he loses he saves the extra bet.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know. That's why I said this:

[ QUOTE ]
you'll win less money when you win the pot than you'll lose when you lose it.

[/ QUOTE ]
What I should have said is that you'll win less money on the later streets when you win the pot than you'll lose on the later streets when you lose it.

By the way, do you know why this is? It's because the ace has a wider distribution than we do. Any time your range is narrower than your opponent's, you are at a disadvantage for all future betting where that disparity continues to exist.

Your problem may stem from this misunderstanding - do you think we're going to lose this pot more often than we're going to win it? That is not the case. We're going to win what's in the middle more than half the time, so it's in our best interests to increase the amount in the middle. This is really basic stuff.

[ QUOTE ]
This gives him control because the 8 just never knows, as the hand progesses, whether he is ahead or behind.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is obviously true but irrelevant. The ace just never knows, as the hand progresses, whether he is ahead or behind, either. All you can ever know at any point is how your hand compares to your opponent's distribution.

[ QUOTE ]
You're basing your argument on this

"Again, I am basing this judgment on the assumption that there are not many situations where inflating the pot by two small bets will force you to call as a dog on the later streets when you could have otherwise folded. If this assumption is accurate then I am right - inflating the pot on third with a guaranteed edge is correct."

while at the same time hoping for no 3 bet AND a 5.

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay. What's your point? Unless you can show that there are a significant number of situations where it will be correct to fold a later street when only one bet went in on third but you will be forced to call down when two bets went in, then raising is preferable to calling. You have not done this.

[ QUOTE ]
I base my argument on the fact we HAVE to play this type of marginal hand because it makes a difference in winning and losing over the long run. You have to play these hands well, at the BEST PRICE. If you don't play, then you get no action when you do play.

[/ QUOTE ]
In this paragraph you have not shown that calling is preferable to raising.

I would like to take this opportunity to again point out how important it is to knock out the bring-in if he has a hand that he is correct to play for one bet but not two.

[ QUOTE ]
Your guaranteed edge on 3rd means nothing on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]
This could not be more wrong. The more equity you have on third, the more likely you are to have the winning hand at the river. At all times, on all streets, our hand's equity against our opponents' distribution should be the primary factor in our decision of whether to fold, call, or raise.

[ QUOTE ]
I call and then play stud poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
Awesome. HU 4 rollz?