The Uncertainty Principle

[smurfitup]

there are two players left to act behind him. floating this flop would be pretty reckless.

[MacGuyV]

[ QUOTE ]
pj,
Assuming heisenberg plays like many 6max regulars, you have to bet the turn every time. A raise is not coming as often as you think and he will almost never bet a worse hand if you check.

Whether to fold to a raise is more player specific, but first start with a bet and then we can talk about how to handle a raise. Not knowing much about heisenberg other than his posts, I'd be inclined to fold to a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yah I sorta agree. I don't think it's a stretch to think that he could be peeling w/ QT or J9 given that:
A) it's hard for the tight players yet to act to overcall this flop when they miss.
B) he'll see some rivers for free because he'll think that you'll think "wtf is he calling with on that flop?".
I'd call a raise quickly though.

[cgrohman]

I would have raised more pre-flop. I bet this turn all day because it looks more like a float than a pair.

[RobA]

I think you bet/fold here, and feel good about it.

He's gotta be worried you have a K, or a pair because you're solid, and after your turn bet he's looking at a tighty that raised pre-flop, bet the flop, and bet the turn. That's scary to anyone with a brain. If he raises, give him credit.

You bet/fold and don't check/fold because checking is obviously "raising the white flag" IMO. If you bet the flop I think you have to bet the turn. When you bet the flop you're saying "i got something" and when he calls he's saying "i got something too". If you then check the turn you're now saying "maybe what i got aint so good" and then he's gonna pounce on your weakness.

[jfk]

He had two players behind when he called a flop bet into a decent sized pot. He isn't looking to protect his hand, he's looking to invite more action.

If he had a pocket pair bigger than an 8, he would've three bet you preflop. If he had a pocket pair smaller than an 8 he would've raised or folded the flop. There's no draw unless now he picked up hearts.

Nearly anything that merited a flop call is now going to get you raised, if for no other purpose than a free showdown.

[Heisenb3rg]

Just a guess, a balanced way to play this in my spot would be, assuming the players behind you are not clairvoyant and are very tight.

1) Unlesse the PFR range is very wide, or you have PP < 8 in your distribution never raising the flop. (I 3-betting 22+)

2) Peel it with any king, any 8 and the best drawing hands. The amount of drawinghands to peel with depends on the strength of the PFRs distribution.

Hands to peel with in order of how good they are to peel:

Ax of spades/hearts/clubs
QJ of spades/hearts/clubs
JT of spades/hearts/clubs
T9 of spades/hearts/clubs

My guess is spreading it among the categories to have a balanced distribution.

Your range once youve called the flop should be made hand heavy.

Then on the turn if it's heads up conconcting a strategy involving mixing your draws + made hands together.

My guess is if checked to, betting all pairs/Kx as well as turned draws.. Checking Ax and the peeling hands which didnt pick up a draw behind.

If bet to, raising a lot but folding most hands that picked up no draws.

I think you can develop a strategy that gives the PFR a lot of very tough decisions with ace high once youve called this flop...

The reason my strategy gives ace high a lot of tough decisions is my range is pretty strong, so Ill be raising the turn a lot if he bets to "protect his hand".
If he wants to showdown he'll now be forced to put in an extra big bet with crappy equity or fold live outs or even the best hand a small % of the time.

If he checks, he saves a bet, but gives a free card to a % of my peeling hands.

[vmacosta]

"My guess is if checked to, betting all pairs/Kx as well as turned draws.."
heisenberg,
i agreed with most of what you said in your post but honestly i dont think you need to bluff-raise any of your range. When a solid live full ring player like PJ fires again A9s is at the very bottom of his range and trying to semibluff that range {A8+,KT+,44+} is playing with fire.

I do, however, think you should bluff your best draws if he checks, bc PJ is probably not screwplaying you and will sometimes chk/fold weak aces. The rest of the time I'd resign myself to making the best hand.

[Heisenb3rg]

[ QUOTE ]
"My guess is if checked to, betting all pairs/Kx as well as turned draws.."
heisenberg,
i agreed with most of what you said in your post but honestly i dont think you need to bluff-raise any of your range. When a solid live full ring player like PJ fires again A9s is at the very bottom of his range and trying to semibluff that range {A8+,KT+,44+} is playing with fire.

I do, however, think you should bluff your best draws if he checks, bc PJ is probably not screwplaying you and will sometimes chk/fold weak aces. The rest of the time I'd resign myself to making the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your not interpreting what I mean when I say "balanced strategy". Im not just talking about a good strategy to use against a player like PJ, im talking about a strategy that would be difficult to counter if my opponent knew exactly what I was doing.

If he thinks im never semi-bluffing, then he can bet/fold all his pairs < 8 and all ace high hands. This is like 70% of the range you listed..Thus, if this is true, I have an easy bluff raise with any two cards since I only have to win the pot like 30% of the time to make an air bluff profitable... With a strong draw id need to win it much less than that.

A balanced strategy MUST include some bluffs on this turn... or else he can fold too much and rarely pay off our good hands. By investing an extra 1.5-2 BB or so with 10% of our hands (our equity is non 0%) we've forced him to pay us off 2BB on 90% of our hands or allow us to steal the pot...

What I would ACTUALLY do against PJ is much different than this.. and what I would do against say you, is much different than what id do against PJ.
In this situation my strategy is geared towards how often I think youd percieve that im semi-bluffing.