[threads13]

[ QUOTE ]
"alternatively, on the flop villain checks, we bet villain calls. villain checks turn, we check behind. then on the river we either bet when checked to or we call villain's bet. this line is completely standard-- flop cbet, check turn for pot control, value bet river."

But in this scenario the pot is already bigger by the turn. And since the pot is bigger going into the turn it now makes a possible donk bet by villian all the more perplexing. So if both lines offer pot control then why is betting flop such a big deal?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question.

I don't think checking behind on this flop is terrible, as many have claimed. I think it is a player dependent thing, but I would tend to bet it against an unknown.

To answer your question, generally speaking, I think betting this flop will generally give us better options down the road.

For example, you might get an opponent to call with some hands here that he will not call with on the turn. He may have some sort of hand that is willing to call the flop MPWK+BDFD, but not call on the turn. Yes, they may now choose to bluff the turn instead, but opponents are generally more likely to call incorrectly than to bluff incorrectly.

Scare cards can sometimes come on the turn, although on this specific board there are only a couple scare cards. Also, it allows us the option to still build a big pot if we are to spike a set later in the hand.

These are very general things, but I think this is generally why this flop should be bet.