[Shaffer]

I've noticed a lot of people seem to think a WA/WB situation automatically equates to "I have no idea where I'm at, so I'll try to see a showdown as cheaply as possible." (This is probably valid as a limit concept, but I think it is far less advisable in NL). This might be what people refer to when they talk about being WA/WB on the River.

In an extreme example, say you have AA on an AKK board and have faced resistance. Now, in the strictest technical sense, this is a WA/WB situation, since you are either way ahead (of any holding but KK) or drawing to 1 out (against KK specifically). This is obviously not a reason to apply the typical WA/WB logic of seeing a showdown as cheaply as possible - we should be value betting. The river is the same as this, only we're even more WA/WB, since whoever is ahead will obviously still be ahead at showdown. The logic for choosing to bet or check in this situation is the same as any other - evaluate your holding against your opponent's range and act accordingly.

I tend to think of a WA/WB situation to mean "Because I don't fear my opponent drawing from behind to beat me, I'm more inclined to explore giving free cards as a means of maximizing my profitability." Often this is the case, in that you can get lesser hands to induce bluffs, or wrongly believe themselves to be ahead, and maximize your value.

If I have AA on the button with a caller from the BB, on a KK7 flop, I might be inclined to bet, when checked to, despite being WA/WB, for a variety of reasons (expecting to gain more value from underpairs and fade-bluffs than I lose to a K). The turn comes a 2, and when checked to again, I might check back - not specifically because I'm WA/WB, but because this is a profitable action here (induce bets from lesser hands on the river), and is helped along by the fact that I'm WA/WB and the river is almost certain to be meaningless.

Does that distinction make sense?