Gaining action by...

[tsrcess]

i think it's always better to end a sentence with a proposition rather than a preposition. anyway, i have never played 100-200, but, i would kind of like to (preposition). particularly if somebody would stake me (proposition). sometimes in steal position, i might raise with something like a,5. now, if the flop is say 5,5,j-i sometimes wonder if checking is correct, but, i usually decide that betting is prefered 'cause a check is too suspicious.....but, sometimes, i think the check is not suspicious to most people without a clue, so it might be better to check there...

[Warren Harding]

My first instinct was that he better not be calling with his good hands for decpetion too often, because that's noticeable and expensive.

[ QUOTE ]
That itself might seem a bit strange (gaining action by allowing him to know I have a good hand that is), but I'm sure many of you will understand what I mean by it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Most 'good hands' are unpaired high cards. If I'm an aggressive player, stealing with Q9, K6, or 44, I'm going to love a flop of of 269r if you raised me. If you have good cards, you probably didn't hit, know that I am aggressive and may be overplaying, and thus will give me action or at least look me up. But, if you have crappy cards, you still probably are behind, so I may decide to sacrifice bets with the hope of letting you catch a better second place hand, or induce and raise a later street pot-stealing bet.

[Jake (The Snake)]

[ QUOTE ]

i could be wrong, but i think what SpicyF was referring to and the excerpt Jake is referring to are different. Jake is focusing on the preflop idea of whether more action is stimulated against this type of player through deception or through playing back and letting him narrow(to a certain extent)his range.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I am talking about the preflop decision on whether or not to 3-bet. Specifically, how can narrowing your range in the eyes of your opponent be to your advantage?

Interestingly, there are very good players who almost never 3-bet from the BB heads up preflop for the opposite reason that SpicyF is talking about. Namely, that they want their range of hands to be very wide every time they call in the eyes of their opponent. A good thread on the topic is
here.

[tom10167]

I've done it a bunch both ways and in the long term I think it's still better to 3 bet unless villain is not only aggressive but actually SMART and then you have a decent case for smoothcalling.


If villain has something like 77-QQ you don't want him to slow down on an XXY board or a monotone board, or a board with one overcard to his pair.

Against certain opponents, typically more passive ones I'll flatcall here if it's headz up but a lot of aggressive players like to be aggressive and raising allows them to be even more aggro.

I like to 3 bet PF bet flop and CR turn and depending on the board either lead or if it's a good board CR river too.

[James.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

i could be wrong, but i think what SpicyF was referring to and the excerpt Jake is referring to are different. Jake is focusing on the preflop idea of whether more action is stimulated against this type of player through deception or through playing back and letting him narrow(to a certain extent)his range.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I am talking about the preflop decision on whether or not to 3-bet. Specifically, how can narrowing your range in the eyes of your opponent be to your advantage?

Interestingly, there are very good players who almost never 3-bet from the BB heads up preflop for the opposite reason that SpicyF is talking about. Namely, that they want their range of hands to be very wide every time they call in the eyes of their opponent. A good thread on the topic is
here.

[/ QUOTE ]

that is a good link. i think spicyf and stellarwind could actually both be correct within the context of the described opponents within their respective limits.