question from schneids' latest CR vid, BB defense with 44

[PP123]

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't he explain the reasoning when he discussed the k4o live hand?

[/ QUOTE ]
Where can I find that hand?

[londomollari]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Didn't he explain the reasoning when he discussed the k4o live hand?

[/ QUOTE ]
Where can I find that hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wasn't a hand he played. He spoke about it I guess somewhere around the halfway point.

[Absolution]

I read it as, when the SB calls, your check raise shows more strength and you're less likely to be messed with, while still being ahead of the SB in most cases. If the button has missed, he's not going to be messing around with 2 of you. He might peel the flop and fold the turn so you also prevent him from seeing 2 cards as you said. You get position on the drawing player and prevent the button from seeing the river where he probably should. You put that together with the meta stuff that MANY pointed out and it seems like a decent play that I basically never make. If you just play passively you're easy to read and have to avoid the majority of the deck twice. If you play it aggressively you're more difficult to read and might even win without a showdown. That also makes your hand easier to play since you've set up a situation where you can probably trust the information you're going to get later in the hand.

On the other hand, if the SB folds, check raising isn't likely to win you the pot any more than just calling down on this board. You will end up on the river in a reverse implied odds situation often. However, if you check-raise you can also represent a lot of scare cards on the turn. Check raising in either case seems like a good option to me.

[Schneids]

What a lot of people have said are the essential reasons why. Also to add: Say the raiser bets, and the SB calls and you call. What do you like doing on the turn if a relatively safe card comes? Checking? Leading into the raiser? Firstly, checking sucks because a lot of the time the PFR may very well check behind if he has no pair, and likewise, he may bet with no pair, so now you're really in a quandary when the action gets back to you. Leading the turn sucks if the PFR is at all good because your pf/flop/turn line looks exactly like this type of hand (unless you start playing flopped top pair this way too) so he should be able to raise you with a LOT of hands, both either as a bluff or for value.

So in part through process of elimination, if the hand is going to be continued, there's a lot of merit to checkraising the flop (not to mention meta game benefits of having this flop checkraise mean more than just top pair or flush draw or that type of thing). If the SB is the only turn caller you obviously check the river and give up (and make note if he did flop a pair and only check called) since it's likely he either has no pair and is folding, or has passively played a pair the whole way.

[Tryptamean]

man, this is good stuff that I haven't really considered in these spots. I haven't gotten a CR account yet because they dont seem to have much limit stuff, but it could be worth it anyway...

[Absolution]

[ QUOTE ]
man, this is good stuff that I haven't really considered in these spots. I haven't gotten a CR account yet because they dont seem to have much limit stuff, but it could be worth it anyway...

[/ QUOTE ]

You can buy the videos individually, which is what I have done.

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
doing some stoving I don't think that we have an equity edge here to push, but checkraising does make the hand easier to play. this is something I've noticed in a bunch of his vids, particularily heads up (more huhu vids plz schneids, preferably vs bad/mediocre LAGs at 5/10+). a lot of hands that I will play as bluff catchers (Ax Kx small pairs), schneids will play aggressively.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of the reason for doing this is so my postflop play can mean anything at any time. One of the biggest difference, IMHO, between the stars 50/100 games and stars 200/400 games, is the 50/100 players are 10x easier to read. Essentially, their flop and turn actions basically always define their hands.

That, and a lot of the time, in the HU pots with those small pairs/ace highs/king highs, the raising on my part is done for value and a further effort to try to get my opponent to fall into a pattern of predictability (most players, when against me and I'm on my game and effectively doing these type of things, fall into one of 2 lines: either call me down always with their bottom half of showdownable hands, and raise the top half, ie become predictable call stations; or, they decide to spew constantly against me when they can't show down (because they know I may have weak hands too) and play more passively with their better half cuz they want to _let me bluff_).


Against people who aren't observing [censored], I would say playing A and K hi passively as bluff catching is correct since mathematically and logically it makes the most sense to. However, against _better competition_, I think it's a noticeable liability and the best competition is going to exploit you and start playing their hands perfectly on the turn and river vs you.

I hope that makes sense, it's IMO one of the tougher topics in short handed LHE and even I struggle to explain it well since a lot of it is intuitive nature about what I've learned and discovered when playing against people and how they tend to react to various things.

[yourface]

great stuff thanks a lot schneids
you've left me with a lot to think about

[HOWMANY]

Schneids please try to find a way to do like a 3 handed video, I'm pretty sure I'm the worst 3 handed poker player on the planet and I don't understand why. I guess I might be really bad HU too but I usually only play people that I think are sucky so that might be why my results aren't as awful.

[joker122]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
doing some stoving I don't think that we have an equity edge here to push, but checkraising does make the hand easier to play. this is something I've noticed in a bunch of his vids, particularily heads up (more huhu vids plz schneids, preferably vs bad/mediocre LAGs at 5/10+). a lot of hands that I will play as bluff catchers (Ax Kx small pairs), schneids will play aggressively.

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of the reason for doing this is so my postflop play can mean anything at any time. One of the biggest difference, IMHO, between the stars 50/100 games and stars 200/400 games, is the 50/100 players are 10x easier to read. Essentially, their flop and turn actions basically always define their hands.

That, and a lot of the time, in the HU pots with those small pairs/ace highs/king highs, the raising on my part is done for value and a further effort to try to get my opponent to fall into a pattern of predictability (most players, when against me and I'm on my game and effectively doing these type of things, fall into one of 2 lines: either call me down always with their bottom half of showdownable hands, and raise the top half, ie become predictable call stations; or, they decide to spew constantly against me when they can't show down (because they know I may have weak hands too) and play more passively with their better half cuz they want to _let me bluff_).


Against people who aren't observing [censored], I would say playing A and K hi passively as bluff catching is correct since mathematically and logically it makes the most sense to. However, against _better competition_, I think it's a noticeable liability and the best competition is going to exploit you and start playing their hands perfectly on the turn and river vs you.

I hope that makes sense, it's IMO one of the tougher topics in short handed LHE and even I struggle to explain it well since a lot of it is intuitive nature about what I've learned and discovered when playing against people and how they tend to react to various things.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think i need to play less tables.