why you should squash the "what does betting accomplish" line in ssnl

[snowbank]

Way too many ssnlers throw this around for no reason and use it as their reasoning for why they should check, check, check, check all day long with their hands. Their reasoning being that anything that they beat folds, so "what's the point of betting." YOU HAVE THE BEST HAND!!! Put your money in while you're ahead.

Yes, there are situations where betting is not the best play, because worse hands can't call, but they can bluff you. You need to realize where these spots are though. Many people are using this incorrectly in ssnl imo. Instead of betting and winning the pot with a strong hand, they are checking and often getting behind, and then calling when you are behind and playing the rest of the hand behind, and having no idea where you are at since you didn't bet the flop when you had control of the hand. Instead of forcing your opponent to call when behind, you make it VERY easy to play against YOU.

Instead of making it hard for your opponents to play you, you are making it easy for them, and making it hard for youself to play your hand. You check a hand because you think "if I bet they fold", and then when turn/river comes and they play back at you, since you "trapped" them, your often trapping yourself since you have no idea where you are at, and your line is often counterproductive if used incorrectly which it seems like it is the majority of the time when used in ssnl.

Again, it's not always wrong to check to induce a bet from a worse hand, but don't just convince youself to check the best hand because of that statement, and not be able to think for yourself why you are actually checking, and what it's going to do to you the rest of the hand.

I don't know if I did a great job of explaining my point because it's real late. I won't get crazy in depth, I'll let some other people chime in. Don't make yourself easy to play against. You are losing huge value often(short-term, but mostly long-term) using this line that many people sell off as the way to play because they don't know what benefits another way of playing brings.

[Freelancer]

Often people assume that villains know's how to abuse each 'leak' in your tendency's. Most villains you play don't even know what tendency's/balancing means, let alone that they can abuse it when you only have air/draws or monster in a certain spot.

Goes pretty much hand in hand with OP, and I agree completely. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[schundler]

Yeah, this is a good point. The concept is much more relevant in hsnl where the opponents are more aware and more aggressive.

[snowbank]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, this is a good point. The concept is much more relevant in hsnl where the opponents are more aware and more aggressive.

[/ QUOTE ]

not so much what I meant. By ssnl I meant the ssnl forums. People are using this reasoning for lines way to often, and incorrectly. I see a lot of posts where people say this, and everyone else agrees, without understanding what they are saying, and why they are agreeing. They have heard it before so they quote it and assume they are using it correctly.

[SilentNoise]

yes i agree.

pretty much what
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=2&vc=1
and
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=2&vc=1

explain, in a more clear way with examples.

[Freelancer]

[ QUOTE ]
yes i agree.

pretty much what
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=2&vc=1
and
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=2&vc=1

explain, in a more clear way with examples.

[/ QUOTE ]
Second thread explains this concept quite good.

[josh_x]

a similar related thing - people often say "he calls all better hands and folds all worse". If this is true, then your opponent has to basically know your exact hand! So whenever you find yourself thinking this, put yourself in your opponents shoes and try to figure out what you have.

[Redd]

I think this concept is easier to understand for players coming from a limit background, because it's a more fundamental part of +EV limit play. (if you're curious, this is because in limit play the ratio of current pot size:future pot size is larger compared to that of NL)

You can still make a +EV bet when villain has an exactly 0% chance of calling with a worse hand because of the equity they have in the current pot. If you check behind (or if you check OOP and he checks behind) 99 against UI overs that would have folded on a 368 flop, you are essentially giving Villain 15% of the pot in sklansky bucks. Plus whatever RIO we give when he hits because we've underrepped our hand.

The reason we're checking here is to try to induce him to make a mistake that's on average greater than the 15% pot plus RIO. If we can exploit Villain to usually bet big when checked to where he would have folded, at a certain betting frequency the value we get from his incorrect bet outweighs the cost of those 15% pot sklansky bucks. It's that point at which a check becomes more profitable than a bet.

Of course, things get more complicated when your check could also make villain think your turn bet is FOS and he calls with a losing hand that he would have folded to a flop bet (again inducing a more expensive mistake on Villain's part), or with runner-runners etc.

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this concept is easier to understand for players coming from a limit background, because it's a more fundamental part of +EV limit play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I come from a limit background. I've spent the past 3 months painfully switching over to NL. In limit, betting is so default, and you don't have to think about more than a few bets at a time. It's pure value and small edges. My biggest problem is applying this concept to NL is that the bets quickly get bigger along with the pot. There's definately a "range" of correct bet sizes given an opponent's hand range. Betting too much or too little is virtually pointless.

In situations where I can't pinpoint the correct bet size, I find myself taking passive lines. This can't be right.

[Jojje_2k]

I have to change my style, I checks the turn like always with TkGK :S