Don't make a bet that a worse hand can't call?

[Yentz]

You shouldnt generally bet when you fold out exactly the hands that you beat, are called by hands that beat you and is unlikely to be drawn out on.. This is not one of those cases though in my opinion:

1) There are several hands that will call that you beat:
Smaller pp's, suited aces and connectors that made 1 pair,
straightdraws, JTetc.
2) If its a fit or fold player having overcards, you are not going to make much money on him bluffing later streets when he is behind and you cehck flop. Therefore folding out these hands is not too bad, since either he will miss the next card and fold to you turn bet instead, or he draws out and you loose.
3) It is generally a good idea to play in such a way that you can continuation bet many flops. If you check here, where you are most likely ahead, and people pick up on it, you have less foldequity in later hands whe you need it.

[HoldEmNewby]

HNRP,

"you shouldn't make a bet that a worse hand won't call"
Your play should not be defined by one axiom. It should be defined by many axioms are intermingled and touching each other in ways that heterosexual axioms shouldn't touch each other [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

You must also consider the numerous axioms connected to the concepts of assigning a hand range (the probability that you are still ahead), protecting your hand (the vulnerability of your hand), getting value from a drawer (the chance villain has a draw) etc. along with the axiom in question.

In this theoretical case we can't bet and have a worse hand call. We can check the flop, but at no point in the hand will this villain call a bet with a hand that is 2nd best. So the only way to stay true to this axiom is by not betting at all. However, doing so violates the axioms related to protecting your hand and not giving free cards to drawers. We need to also consider the likelihood that villain would bluff if given the opportunity in conjunction with our ability to assign villain a possible hand range. If villain bluffs never and never calls with a second best hand; than we should bet out enough to charge someone drawing with 6 outs on that flop (2 overcards is still a draw). Sticking to theory, and because I always play perfect poker (sarcasm) there is also the chance we are already behind villain so I should adjust my bet size relative to that. <- I have no clue hos this calculation is done.

If villain is capable of bluffing than we consider the chance and with what strength he will bluff a 2nd best hand on the turn in comparison to the chance that he will make a better hand to ours on the turn and in comparison to the chance he has already made a better hand than ours.
Villains bluff frequency weighs greatly our actions on this flop.

So in conclusion. Yeah, what the heck: 2/3 sounds about right