A high, getting to showdown...

[cartman]

[ QUOTE ]
Nate's Poker Axiom #214 is that a plan of check-calling both big streets after having the lead on the flop is *almost* always wrong.

There are times to play it this way, but they usually involve a LOT of history between you and your opponent, or a board that improves in a way conducive to bluffs/semibluffs.

Neither of those apply here. The fold decision is very clear if you're raised, and that IMO makes the bet decision very clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Nate,

I historically bet/fold here especially when my kicker is this low. Against an opponent who is solid enough not to mindlessly bet the turn and river if I check to him, I also frequently take the patented Nate tha' Great line of checking the turn and folding the river if and only if he bets both streets. But in response to a recent post I did some math on the implications of bet/folding the turn vs going into check/call mode vs an opponent who we can't trust and the results were pretty surprising. Here is the link. I would very much like to hear your take on it.

Thanks,
Cartman

[kiddo]

[ QUOTE ]
I have had good success in games this limit and higher shorthanded check/calling both big streets vs. opponents as loose aggressive as the one described. They simply cannot stop bluffing no matter how obvious you make it that you are calling down.

[/ QUOTE ]

With this logic - I dont want to call a raise but I have to so I prefer checkcall - I guess u should check all way, also the flop? If u are determined to go to showdown I dont see why u ever should bet with a bluffcatcher?

Or would u fold somewhere if he raised flop?

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

Cartman,

I think you're going about thinking about the problem the right way. But the analysis doesn't get you so far unless you know how likely your opponent is to raise with a worse hand. I don't think it's very likely at all on hands such as the one illustrated here.

I also think that ignoring the river action is problematic. One of the problems with this line is that you're basically your opponent's bitch on the river. He bluff, value-bet, or take a free showdown as he sees fit.

I don't know - I've only played about 5000 hands since my "break". But one of the things I've been doing differently is to be willing to make some more precise hand reads, and act on them accordingly.

[JBB]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't vote yet.

There are a bunch of factors to consider, IMO.

-what hands does villain peel with here? he looks fishy but some fishy PF guys play semi-sane postflop
-is villain capable of bluffing turn + riv when checked to? I'd assume yes given the line you took.
-is villain capable of bluffraising the turn with worse hands? is it enough to be concerned about (ie, when he calls the flop he's usually floating to raise the turn, not peeling to fold the turn)

etc.

I need more info. As a default, assuming he's overaggro, bad, and doesn't read hands terribly well, then c-c, c-c is good. If he's capable of thought and realizes your hand is an obvious ace-high, and you aren't folding it, then c-c, c-f is good.

Surf

[/ QUOTE ]

How many tables do you play at once? As a general rule, I see you put a lot into your reads of opponents and their playing tendencies. You seem to have way more sophisticated reads than I ever do.

[ggbman]

Krishan, against this type of opponent the line you took is very bad. You can bet/fold the turn, and if the river is a total dud, you can check/call, although i suspect you are very rarely good. That said, you might see diamonds or 9-T enough to justify calling, i don't know.

This board is a very bad one to want to showdown A-9 high, i really don't think you lose much by giving up on the turn to be honest, because he's always going to get 2 bets when ahead, whereas you usually only get 1 when you are ahead, which is not very often. But by bet/folding the turn, you put pressure on very small PP's, make him pay to draw, and hopefully can pick up some info on his hand, which right now can be anything.

[Surf]

[ QUOTE ]


How many tables do you play at once? As a general rule, I see you put a lot into your reads of opponents and their playing tendencies. You seem to have way more sophisticated reads than I ever do.

[/ QUOTE ]

4-5. I played 3 all through January because i was breaking some old habits and making some new ones, which is tough to do when massively multitabling. I take detailed notes on my opponents postflop play, and i put effort into remembering previous hands at the table. It can get tiring though, my sessions usually only last 1-1.5hrs.

Surf

[Schizo]

[ QUOTE ]
You seem to have way more sophisticated reads than I ever do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reads such as bluffraising worse hands or betting T or R when checked to are sophisticated reads? I know you are much better than I am but how much do you pay attention at the table?