Another more complicated Agree or Disagree

[whaahhahahah]

is floating a checkraise in position profitable? if the villain is c-betting each time, isn't a 3bet from him more likely?

i think the frequency for villain raising your lead (or floating your lead) is way higher than the frequency for villain floating a checkraise (or floating your checkraise).

fwiw, up to 150 bb deep, i think the checkraise bluff works best because it threatens a massive pot without committing you to one. over 150, i like a lead more because if he's the type of player who raises habitually, you can 3bet bluff without committing.

[Requin]

[ QUOTE ]
disagree, although I'd check prob 95%, but if the flop is 9c7h6c there's a decent range I'd want to lead and then a part of that I'd want to 3bet the flop with rather than checking and then raising and putting myself in a bad spot on the turn...of course if he's rarely raising the flop here that changes things

[/ QUOTE ]I don't think that spot is such a big deal if you compensate by CRing bigger than usual, so that there's not that much more than pot left on the turn. Makes flop more of a shove/fold situation for villain. It helps if villain always c-bets around pot-sized though.

[gergery]

in general i agree with your statement, but
- need to change "always" to "very often"
- need to caveat for stack sizes. for ex. some drawing hands you won't want to be caught with awkward decisions on potsize vs. remaining amount to be bet on turn, and some short stack spots you may always want fold equity, etc.
- need to assume relatively normal behavior otherwise (ie. he's not supertight preflop, is reasonably agro in raising you if you minbet vs. c-r etc.)

i like the strategy idea posts you're doing, nice job,

-g

[Apathy]

[ QUOTE ]
In Mathematics of Poker C&K state they can prove that a strategy of always checking to the PFR HU is at least co-optimal with strategies that incorporate leading.

The proof is apparently beyond the scope of the book, but just a FYI.

[/ QUOTE ]

I havent read that but I think thats interesting I'd like to discuss that in this thread.

Also I guess I should have been more specific to not get a few people off track on this one but it is not a trick question, you are playing a solid thinking opponent Hu and you are playing 100bb stacks or more (if you think going much deeper changes your answer lets hear how much and why).

If you lead or check call or check raise they will start to play poker, adjust and try there best to play well, simple as that, make whatever assumptions from there you would like, BUT THEY WILL ALWAYS C-BET.

I held the opinion that you should always check to this person for a long time but over the summer I heard some great arguments otherwise from other people. Id love to have some of those ideas rehashed here.

[Apathy]

Also, to those that are saying this isnt an absolute but they would almost always do it: I really dont get that, you want to lead only with a very specific type of hands? That doesnt seem to have any logic in it to me as it will be easily picked apart over a short time. Or did you mean something else?

[Apathy]

[ QUOTE ]
disagree, although I'd check prob 95%, but if the flop is 9c7h6c there's a decent range I'd want to lead and then a part of that I'd want to 3bet the flop with rather than checking and then raising and putting myself in a bad spot on the turn...of course if he's rarely raising the flop here that changes things

[/ QUOTE ]

So you would always lead or check fold on very connected boards? Is that basically because you are most likely to want to either get only one bet in on the flop or get it all in?

You know its ok to check raise the flop and check the turn.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
" checkraising = betting out in all of these scenarios except the pot is larger."

not at all. where does it say villain won't fold to our flop bet? i def. run into villains who cont bet 90% but don't raise leads with nearly the same frequency.



[/ QUOTE ]


huh? What does our opponent sometimes folding to our flop bet have to do with anything? Obviously they will fold to it sometimes, just as they will fold to our checkraise. The only difference in these two scenarios is the size of the pot and the depth of the stacks.

It just seems like a simple pot control question, where if you can come up with a hand where you would somehow like the pot to be smaller and/or the stacks to be shallower, you should bet out on that particular hand assuming you are playing in a vacuum.

[discopro]

[ QUOTE ]
But why would a hand not be strong enough to checkraise but is strong enough to bet, when we have the exact same information about the opponent's hand in both cases and are betting the same amount relative to the pot?

[/ QUOTE ]

A check raise costs relatively more than a lead unless it's a min check raise. Like, a pot-size check raise risks 2x the pot, a pot-size lead risks 1x.

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But why would a hand not be strong enough to checkraise but is strong enough to bet, when we have the exact same information about the opponent's hand in both cases and are betting the same amount relative to the pot?

[/ QUOTE ]

A check raise costs relatively more than a lead unless it's a min check raise. Like, a pot-size check raise risks 2x the pot, a pot-size lead risks 1x.

[/ QUOTE ]

oh yea [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] I'm dumb. So that's another reason why you wouldn't want to check every single hand.

[TheWorstPlayer]

I think it really depends on how they react if you lead. If they are the type to call or fold then I would always check to them. If they are the type to raise often, then I will lead with hands that I want them to raise against. For people who think that leading gives you protection or whatever, compare the scenario where you lead and they call against the scenario where you check and call their bet. It should be clear that the two scenarios are the same except that against a normal opponent, his range will be stronger in the first scenario than the second. So if he'll never raise when led into, but he'll only call with his stronger hands, you should always check to him. Because with his weaker hands, he's basically just forcing himself to overpay to see the turn by betting. Just like if you bet pot and he called with that weaker hand.

And the value of getting him to overpay on the flop is almost always going to be greater than the value of getting him to fold on the flop. This will obviously depend on just how weak his hand is compared to yours and how many outs he has, but assuming he has 3-6 outs, this will probably be true, depending on assumptions about how he plays the turn. Check/calling also gives you a chance to suck out on the turn just as often as it gives HIM a chance to suck out on the turn, so that consideration is probably a wash (depends on his open raising standards and the board).