Semi bluffing and slowplaying

[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't ever want to check the flop last to act with a vulnerable nut hand like the one in Hand 2. Ever! You want to extract as much value as possible and you want to protect your hand as well as possible.


[/ QUOTE ]

You don't ever ever ever want to do something exactly the same 100% of the time.

For example, if you are playing big stacks, every once and a while you might check top set on a draw heavy board. (or play passively).

Someone may pay you off with second set when the board pairs, think they have the nuts because no one would EVER EVER play top set passively on a draw heavy board.

Now just to head off all the resident retards on this board, I'd like to REITERATE that this is something you are going to do a very low % of the time.

[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]



and my new experiment would be something like

z=95%
y=50%
z=20%

[/ QUOTE ]

I have several comments on the way I think about this.

I think as an overall plan if you are talking about the average table out there online vs the average players these numbers are good. However, I'm sure I don't need to point out to you that in practice the most profitable players the ones that are the most predicatable? There's really no reason to play optimally against them?

But what I think you are getting at is you want to mold YOUR game into a generally unexploitable game by the other good players sitting at your table, If that is the case, I think you are probably better off breaking out a pencil, paper and calculator and doing some basic analysis on general situations (like the ones you've mentioned in your OP) and coming up with the best answers. I don't know for sure, but I guess this will get you where you want to go faster than just playing a lot of hands.

My last comment is that I personally find it very difficult to do something 30-70% of the time without some randomizing aid. Also it's to easy to stray from "optimal" play because you think you can exploit someone.

[LA_Price]

the numbers would definitely go up or down based on a loose aggressive, tight passive table. I remember reading in The professor, banker, and the Suicide King about Andy Beal using some sort of randomizing device. I think it would sort of hard to do while i'm 5 or 6 tabling but I think using one live would be feasible.

I try and control all these numbers with the poker tracker aggression factor. Mine has creeped up to really high levels at times, which could also indicate I'm not calling my opponents bluffs enough as well but I usually have caught it and made the adjustments.

I just had a thought too that times I would want to do this would be those where i could make my opponent put in lots of money with few or no outs, thus making it very costly. I think the straight hand is a good hand to do it with specifically because most people wouldn't ever slowplay there, whereas if i did it with quads it's sort of a slowplay everyone expects and it still wouldn't be paid off.

[Big Dave D]

LA,

I'm not sure these are particularly comparable examples. In the first, if you get check raised and end up headsup you are not happy. In the second, you very much are. In general though, waiting for the turn is a good strategy online simple because so few players in the 6 max game do it. I'm just not convinced you're examples are that hot.

cheers

Dave

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
In a vacuum hand 2 would be bad to do but I think some of the responses have missed the point of the post which was more thinking about an overall game strategy. Many of you are commmenting on the specifics of the certain hand. What you do on any given hand is rather meaningless compared to your overall game plan.

[/ QUOTE ]

I probably check behind on the flop with the nuts more than most, but checking behind in hand 2 is just a total disaster. The sick amount of e.v. you're giving up can't possibly be made up for by the slim chance that at some point in the future someone might think "hmm, he may have checked behind the nut straight with wrap draw to higher straight here, I won't bet into him." Generally, if you want to check your nut hands for deception, do it at times when the turn might put you in an even more profitable position.

[donkeykong2]

if you bet and semi-bluff a lot, i dont think you re losing too much value if you re getting pushed of on the turn after checking behind on the flop. you might still call if your hand improved or raise i you think he s doing a move to frequently.

[LA_Price]

Dave and Pete,

Care to post some counterexamples real or made up that many be better? I'm willing to accept that hand 2 may not be the best example of a place to check behind but would like to see some of the better situations you're both talking about.

Also am I not really giving up some ev on any specific hand I play this way, but increasing the expectation of my game plan overall?

[greywolf]

It's quite simple actually. Dont ever check behind nuts like in hand 2. Bet your nut hands and hands with few outs that cant stand a checkraise. Most people at those stakes wont play back without nuts or a 13+ outs draw so if you bet bluffs and nuts and maybe check behind hands that cant stand a checkraise you are going to do good.

OOP i am often betting flop and giving up on turn. This usually works well because people sucks so badly at omaha. Sometimes people start noticing that i give up too often to a turn bet though, when that happens i start checking my good hands on the turn so that i can checkraise. If he is any good he is going to notice what just happend and start checking behind the turn sometimes again and you have to start betting into him sometimes.

[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]
Care to post some counterexamples real or made up that many be better? I'm willing to accept that hand 2 may not be the best example of a place to check behind but would like to see some of the better situations you're both talking about.


[/ QUOTE ]

Since this is a general discussion, maybe discuss different types of nuts...

1. Straight that can't improve
2. Straight that can improve (to higher straight, or you have a flush draw, or you have a set)
3. Top set on raggedy board
4. Top set on a dangerous board

Seems like this might be a better spot to occassionally check, especially if you and the villain have really been trading shots at each other.

Hero: K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

Preflop
Villain limps in MP
Hero raises pot
Blinds fold so flop is heads up.

Flop
K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Villain checks, hero checks.
Better still would be villain bets and you call.

If you are playing deepstacks, you could potentially extract more money if the board pairs with 6 hearts or a heart of whatever the turn suit is. An ace hits giving opponent two pair. Board pairs 6 or 7, giving your opponent trips or better yet some full house. If there's also a flush on the board the pot could get quite large.

Of course you do this at some risk since the board might end up with a flush or straight. But if the villain bets out on flop and you reraise and then he calls and a straight or flush hits, you are in a pickle anyway. So maybe checking/playing passively in this situation is best against a tough opponent, where your flop is that +EV anyway, and therefore you aren't making as much of a "mistake" with the passive flop play.

[iggymcfly]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You don't ever want to check the flop last to act with a vulnerable nut hand like the one in Hand 2. Ever! You want to extract as much value as possible and you want to protect your hand as well as possible.


[/ QUOTE ]

You don't ever ever ever want to do something exactly the same 100% of the time.

For example, if you are playing big stacks, every once and a while you might check top set on a draw heavy board. (or play passively).

Someone may pay you off with second set when the board pairs, think they have the nuts because no one would EVER EVER play top set passively on a draw heavy board.

Now just to head off all the resident retards on this board, I'd like to REITERATE that this is something you are going to do a very low % of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

See, this is just wrong. If I'm playing LHE, and I'm on the button with two limpers and AA, I'm raising 100% of the time. Limping just to do something different is stupid. If I've got rolled up kings in razz, I'm folding 100% of the time. Some plays are just correct and don't need randomizing. Likewise, if I flop the nut straight last to act with the betting lead, I'm going to bet 100% of the time.

The only point of randomizing your strategy is to make it so that it's not exploitable. If you fold the turn or river unimproved 100% of the time when you check the flop on a T86r board, yes that's a leak against an observant opponent. The counter to this is to sometimes call down with sets or with two pair. That way, your opponents can't bluff you mercilessly on the turn, because they'll sometimes get looked up. There's no way to exploit this behavior. To try to explain the point more concisely, playing one hand the same way each time is not inherently exploitable. Playing the same situation the same way all the time is.

My other point was that from an image standpoint, getting people to lay down to your flop bets is more important than getting people to respect your flop checks. When they see you show down the nut straight after checking the flop, it's going to cause your opponents to come over the top of or at least call your flop bets that you don't want called a lot more than it will help you when you check. Even if you do it rarely, when your opponents see this, it will unwittingly cause your opponents to play more optimally against you and will cost you even more EV in the long run than you lost on this individual hand.