Theory & Practice

[Red_Diamond]

Concept #38... Be more apt to semibluff when your draw isn't to the nuts than when it is.

The area goes through some explanation how your opponent can't check-raise you all in on a free card and shut you out from STACKING him by rivering that straight, flush, whatever nuts. Also, it argues that when you have the nuts, you have no constraints on getting all your money in the middle as you have no fear, and you can't do this on a scary board. It instructs you to tend to take free cards to hit the nuts, which is supposed to be +ev.

But on the whole, I am really not sure the best way to STACK someone is by checking behind when on a draw to the nuts. I am much more a fan of semi-bluffing. One reason obviously is most times I am not going to get there, so I am happy to take the pot down without a showdown, but there is another reason, actualy a couple.

#1. If I semi-bluff, and get called, the pot size has now increased substantialy. Thus, am I not also going to STACK my opponent much more easier if the nuts come in? I won't be afraid to put all my money in on the river, and my semi-bluff will have helped to get my opponent now tied onto the pot. Obviously a smart opponent is not going to go broke on a nothing pot, so having something in there helps.

#2, If I raise on the come, the hand will be played a little more deceptive. If I take a free card and suddenly push now that the obvious straight or flush has arrived, this isn't really going to stack your opponent too much IMHO.

Now I'm not claiming my way is more right, but would like to see some more debate on this so if I am indeed doing things wrong I can fix this a little.

[jeffnc]

I would tend to agree with both your points and this doesn't make complete sense to me either.

I emailed Sklansky once with a question about a confusing hand example from TOP. I got a read receipt but he never bothered to reply.

[SplawnDarts]

I need to go back and look at that part, because it struck me as wrong too and I never bothered to come to an exact conclusion.

In the real world, I semi-bluff when I think it will work, and don't when I think it won't. A concept that seems to be lost on DS & Ed.

[D.L.M.]

i think this point is more in reference to situations where you are atleast 150 bbs deep, (when your oponent can punish you for raising while behind)

[Black winter day]

My MSNL thread regarding 2 erroneous concepts in NLTAP

Pmed Sklansky, but he didn't bother to reply.

[sandman-54]

[ QUOTE ]
One reason obviously is most times I am not going to get there, so I am happy to take the pot down without a showdown

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your reasoning and, in general, agree with you. However, that doesn't disprove the concept since, even if in both cases you're happier to take the pot down, you must agree that you'd be happier (EV wise) to do so with a draw that isn't to the nuts.

[ QUOTE ]
If I raise on the come, the hand will be played a little more deceptive. If I take a free card and suddenly push now that the obvious straight or flush has arrived, this isn't really going to stack your opponent too much IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you saying that a nut draw is usually more obvious than a draw to less than the nuts? If you are, your argument may hold some ground. But it seems like you're arguing for the semi-bluff over the check in very general terms.

In a deep-stacked no-limit game, your implied odds are a lot lower with a draw to less than the nuts than a nut draw. This should be common logic for most people. So, if you can accept that, then you should accept that the EV of checking with the nuts should more often compare favorably to the EV of the semi-bluff than the EV of checking with a less than nut draw should.

[ QUOTE ]
Now I'm not claiming my way is more right, but would like to see some more debate on this so if I am indeed doing things wrong I can fix this a little.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad to participate in unbiased debate and will remain open-minded and, in some cases, struggle with the ideas presented by posters. But I think the concepts in this particular book can cause a lot of confusion. This concept makes perfect sense, but I'll agree that the idea isn't worth too much. On the other side of the coin, it has the capability of getting lots of readers into trouble.


[ QUOTE ]
I think this point is more in reference to situations where you are atleast 150 bbs deep, (when your oponent can punish you for raising while behind)

[/ QUOTE ]

DS and Ed even noted that the concept applied only when the stacks are big, which I think should be obvious. The text further read "With small stacks the reverse concept is usually true".