An interesting hand

[ace93rd]

Arguments can be made for calling pre-flop as opposed to raising since pot has already been limped, and since it will play out as multi-way pot building it big if we hit set should not be a problem.

Flop: Considering texture of flop, it can also be argued that not betting can potentially lead to greater +EV, this is do to the fact again that there are 6 players in it, and it is likely that either A. someone after us will bet pot which can lead to dead money trapped in pot because players to act between better and us might call or chooose to re-raise this bet.

Turn: This is where I believe the article and David play is severly flawed, considering texture of board, and the fact that nobody has shown strength by betting flop, and it was checked to us on turn this is the moment which we should try to get money into pot. Sonsidering there are 6 people in pot is is likely that one or two of them have the Q, and also likely that others have something on board stong enough to call moderate bet. Also, by betting here we might possibly induce another big hand which is being slow played to come alive. By checking it will be nearly impossible to get all our chips in the middle even from someone who perhaps river's two pair etc.

[Mr_Donktastic]

Edited

[MyTurn2Raise]

I wished that article was an April Fools' joke

if that is the way 5/10 live is played, I need to get in on some of that easy $$$$

[Stake Monster]

I know it's been said many times, but i thought the advice in the article was horrible. Checking both streets there goes against logic of trying to build a big pot with your big hands. If everyone folds to your bet on the flop then so be it, but with a 6 player pot someone is bound to have something they'd call (or even raise if they hit a set as well) with.

[threads13]

Everyone who says this article is so horrible hasn't bothered to specifically find the flaws in my previous argument.

I don't get the point in saying "this is horrible" and not backing it up with anything an analysis. I am explaining why I think it is is a good play in this spot. We assume that they won't call with many worse hand(most of which is going AI almost regardless), therefore they won't make a mistake.

Tell me what is wrong with what I said if the play is so horrible.

[BartHanson]

I just finished reading the article and I am still in shock. One of the things that have not been mentioned here is that a c/r is indicative of much more strength than a bet. On the turn you may get a call from a hand like QT or QJ but you're definitely not going to get a c/r call and a river call from a lone pair hand like that. One of the other things that I have noticed from commentating LATB is that you don't know what people will call you with with that initial flop bet. Hands like 54, 64, and 76 all may call bets on the flop but may not bet. Even at that point if you get it headsup the Q on the turn is pretty inconsequential they still may call your turn bet especially if they have a hand like a weak top pair.

Instead of using Sklansky’s line of check calling the flop and allowing a disastrous check/check behind on the turn you have built a nice pot here by flop and turn betting where a 2/3 bet at the river equals something more like $175 as opposed to $45. The concept that is missed here is that no one ever thinks that you have a really strong hand if you bet in a live game let alone bet all three streets. They are more prone to call you with marginal hands if played in a straightforward manner. Suddenly waking up on a later street with a monster is exactly how they expect you to play 77 and they will be more cautious.

[Jurrr]

I think check-flop, check-raise turn line is sick strong and gets action only from straights and sets.

Leading flop is more deceptive.

[AbreuTime]

[ QUOTE ]
I think check-flop, check-raise turn line is sick strong and gets action only from straights and sets.

Leading flop is more deceptive.

[/ QUOTE ]
Additionally, a lot of the focus is on hands like 88 and 99. Do we want to give these hands free cards? 46, A4 and 45? Six-handed, I say bet flop for about 1/2 pot.

How do we play 66? Would we bet, since 88 and 99 fold?

Check flop and check-raise turn is a terrible line, in my opinion. Almost every made hand shuts down, and you still only get 1 bet out of it. Betting flop and then maybe checking turn is an interesting play, and may induce more action from weaker made hands.

[renodoc]

[ QUOTE ]


who said i wasnt thinking about them? to be honest though 200NL and up online is as tough as any live game you're going to find as high as 10/20.

[/ QUOTE ]

10/20 NL live is a ferocious beast compared to the donkey filled 200NL online. most of the time.

What i dont' understand about this hand is why we would limp PF and not "sweeten the pot". If we raise PF, we are more disguised, can make a much larger bet or raise when the time comes. even if we just make it $25 to go, it seems likely that at least 4 see the flop (pot $100-$115) vs 6 limpers ($60) If our PF raise takes down the blinds, great, lets move on.

I suppose this would be too aggro for the "decent" players described in the hand.

[raistlinx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


who said i wasnt thinking about them? to be honest though 200NL and up online is as tough as any live game you're going to find as high as 10/20.

[/ QUOTE ]

10/20 NL live is a ferocious beast compared to the donkey filled 200NL online. most of the time.

What i dont' understand about this hand is why we would limp PF and not "sweeten the pot". If we raise PF, we are more disguised, can make a much larger bet or raise when the time comes. even if we just make it $25 to go, it seems likely that at least 4 see the flop (pot $100-$115) vs 6 limpers ($60) If our PF raise takes down the blinds, great, lets move on.

I suppose this would be too aggro for the "decent" players described in the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
I believe because of the effective stack sizes. If we sweeten the pot and get raised behind by a big hand we don't have deep enough stacks to call it and we want to see a flop with 77.