Stars $55 regular, BB special

[wiggs73]

I voted for D, but it was a mistake, sort of...

I think you have 2 options here, 1 would be to lead out and the other would be to check-fold in this particular instance.

In practice, I'd almost always lead out here for 2 reasons. 1 is it disguises your hand which makes it easier to extract chips from other hands when a 3rd diamond hits. 2 is that it gives you a way to pick the pot up immediately, and will probably work often when all that happens pre-flop is 1 MP player limps and the SB completes. I can see both players folding often enough so that leading would be profitable, even if you never hit your flush when you get called or raised.

The reason I voted D is because after checking, I would just fold for a pot sized bet. I don't care that it's small relative to your stack; pot odds are pot odds and you aren't getting correct odds to call. I know a lot of people will say, well what about implied odds. But if you check-call down to the river and a 3rd diamond hits, do you really think you're getting paid off? I think the CC line makes your hand fairly transparent and so I'm playin pot odds here more than implied odds. I'd be more inclined to call chasing a draw in a cash game anyway, where I can reload to a full stack after I miss.

If you check and MP does something goofy like min-bet, I would probably check-raise for the same reasons I would lead out. An additional reason I like check-raising a small bet more than a large one, is that you achieve the same effect for less chips. If villain calls a meaningful check-raise to his pot sized bet and the turn blanks, you're going to be in an awkward situation where you've put in ~300 chips, are out of position, and have king-high.

[bennies]

wiggs, nice post.

(I also voted to fold by the way)

[The Venetian]

[ QUOTE ]
In practice, I'd almost always lead out here for 2 reasons. 1 is it disguises your hand which makes it easier to extract chips from other hands when a 3rd diamond hits. 2 is that it gives you a way to pick the pot up immediately, and will probably work often when all that happens pre-flop is 1 MP player limps and the SB completes. I can see both players folding often enough so that leading would be profitable, even if you never hit your flush when you get called or raised.

[/ QUOTE ]

You really should lead this flop in my opinion.

[SuitedSixes]

I can't explain it any better than Wiggs.

[Cpaz]

I voted A. I thought the rule was that if you are planning to call a bet it's better to make the bet instead. More ways to win. I would think the size of the bet would be about the size of the bet you would call or perhaps a bit smaller.

[Indiana]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't explain it any better than Wiggs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Wiggs does make a good point in his posts. However, has anyone thought about the profitability over the long run of betting out vs. C/R-ing? I mean, would anyone be willing to crunch some #s under some assumptions?

Thanks,

Indy

[wiggs73]

Indy,

Way way way too many assumptions would have to be made here for this to be practical, along with a lot of considerations about how various stack sizes affect $EV and all that.

Impossible I'd say. I like math as much as the next guy, but I don't think you're going to solve this one with an equation. I mean, I guess you can, but I think there are going to be so many variables that are tough to quantify that it would be impractical to.

[cha59]

[ QUOTE ]
I can't explain it any better than Wiggs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. Wiggs nailed this.

I dont like the way I played this hand. I voted for leading out on the flop.

I also think that check/folding is better than check/calling. I check/called because of implied odds, which were not probably as good as they needed to be for check/calling to be good.

Check/raising - I dont like this line with this hand at all and havent seen any good arguments for it.

[bigt439]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't explain it any better than Wiggs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. Wiggs nailed this.

I dont like the way I played this hand. I voted for leading out on the flop.

I also think that check/folding is better than check/calling. I check/called because of implied odds, which were not probably as good as they needed to be for check/calling to be good.

Check/raising - I dont like this line with this hand at all and havent seen any good arguments for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

ha...

i would lead flop and think check fold here is pretty bad.

dont mean to take the wind out of everyones sales, but you have like at least 50% equity against like any hand he bets here and you can outplay him fo sho. if you lead he folds a lot seeing as how you're in the bb... i dunno he has rando a or some junk a lot and if he just calls, whatever not that hard to play the hand plus youll likely see two cards if that goes down. if you get raise lifes a bitch and then you die.

[cha59]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I can't explain it any better than Wiggs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. Wiggs nailed this.

I dont like the way I played this hand. I voted for leading out on the flop.

I also think that check/folding is better than check/calling. I check/called because of implied odds, which were not probably as good as they needed to be for check/calling to be good.

Check/raising - I dont like this line with this hand at all and havent seen any good arguments for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

ha...

i would lead flop and think check fold here is pretty bad.

dont mean to take the wind out of everyones sales, but you have like at least 50% equity against like any hand he bets here and you can outplay him fo sho. if you lead he folds a lot seeing as how you're in the bb... i dunno he has rando a or some junk a lot and if he just calls, whatever not that hard to play the hand plus youll likely see two cards if that goes down. if you get raise lifes a bitch and then you die.

[/ QUOTE ]

BigT, like I said, I think leading is best. What is your opinion of the flop checkraise here?