Spots we rarely think about

[0evg0]

[ QUOTE ]
What this means is: You get to play poker! Wow, Poker can be fun! Poker is not "exactly" mechanical and robotic! Yay.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't have been said better.

If you are betting this flop, you are doing so because you're misapplying some basic theorem that you learned. Spots like these are not ones that can be explained, they are learned intrinsically through experience.

It's the same thing with 6-max where I see plenty of regs with AF's of 3+, which is simply not optimal. It's probably more profitable than the other end of the spectrum, but playing rote by simply bet/bet/betting because you have heard that "NLHE rewards bold and agressive play" (sorry to dumb it down, but this is simply the case at the base level) is going to lead you to a) straying from optimal play, b) leading yourself towards highly exploitable play, and c) stunting your growth as a thinking player.

This really is a check and it's just not up for debate.

When you say you are "called by worse", name some unpaired 6X hands that villain will show up with here coldcalling preflop. And now think about how often he takes a line that allows you to maximize profit against that hand. See how low that frequency is? And that's the best case scenario.

Even if he's doing something far from optimal like c/c'ing with JT, he's got massive equity versus you. And again, this is best case scenario for us.

Finally, one thing not mentioned is that if we bet we are almost never folding out better hands. But if we check back and bet many a turn, he will often fold a 5, or maybe even a 7 depending on the turn card. We gain even more expectation by taking a line that allows us to bluff more profitably as well.

[fitnessfreak]

[ QUOTE ]

It's the same thing with 6-max where I see plenty of regs with AF's of 3+, which is simply not optimal.

[/ QUOTE ]

without trying to hijack this thread, as it is a very good one so far, but would you care to elaborate on this comment. im not saying its wrong, but fwiw my AF is around the 4-4.5 mark and i definately do not robotically c-bet every flop, in fact i give up fairly often when the situation warrants it on any street.

[Montezuma21]

[ QUOTE ]

also, in the rare event you do get called "BY WORSE" remember that "worse on the flop" is a relative term, since the "best hand" on the flop does NOT necessarily equate to the MOST equity, which is BY FAR the most important facet of a hand. (obviously, more important in omaha, but certainly very relevant to holdem)

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you referring to the likelihood of being bluffed off of the best hand? great post btw, as usual.

[carrotsnake]

evg - whats up with talking about 3 bets ?

Mont - he's talking about the fact that though 22 might be beating 9Thh atm, its behind equity wise

dust- I would recommend never playing HU, seriously. Your posts show a lack of understanding of just pf HU, yet alone post.

I still contend this is a cbet against most 1/2 players because they do not actively play back/call enough on the flop to put you in a difficult place on the turn or river. However, against a solid player, I can see a check, though I'd still cbet a decent amount in this spot because I'd rather check behind other hands(since I check behind a fair amount).

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would almost always bet this. You easily get called by worse here, especially against villains like this. 6x, flush draws, ace high especially of the suit, overcards, straight draws, gutshot+ type hands like 9Q, etc..

[/ QUOTE ]

again, this is misapplication of both the FTOP and poker 101. FTOP says if you know what they had, would you do the same thing, poker 101 says if we have the best of it we should bet. (small digression, these two things are different: Do you see how?) Anyway, the main point of making a bet you think will be called is not "getting called by worse" (typically worse made hands, since made > made is where alot of your equity return will come from) but rather how your equity edge fares, and incidentally, ignoring pot size since, and bare with this math, they are incorrect when they have say 0% equity to 30% equity but then 30% to 50% they are correct, and then past 51% is where the bettor is making a bad bet. So, again, 22 HU vs this opponent type when called even by a loose you're never in the first "schism" of value betting (the technical first 30% which should be auto bets by everyone, the marginal area is the next 20%, followed by going beyond 51%, where you're reaching for folding equity but NOT value)

also, in the rare event you do get called "BY WORSE" remember that "worse on the flop" is a relative term, since the "best hand" on the flop does NOT necessarily equate to the MOST equity, which is BY FAR the most important facet of a hand. (obviously, more important in omaha, but certainly very relevant to holdem)

[ QUOTE ]
Gotta play the turn carefully though or it becomes spew.

[/ QUOTE ]
edited to add this, certainly this part of the hand is essential. We cannot assume the hand ends on the flop, because if that is the case, a bet is more objectively viewed as superior or inferior. In any event, the fact that playing the turn IS difficult WHEN called, does shade the flop toward being checked.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are leaving out balancing here. If you're always checking this flop with marginal hands with showdown value and betting with monsters or air, then it becomes very easy/cheap to exploit and very quickly heads up. If you check behind here with QQ/A8/Ahxh/etc then I'd be more inclined to agree with checking, but on a flop this wet and easy to get value on - I would almost never check those.

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]
geez, i really hope i never have to play on bobbo's tables! thx for the input though, v insightful [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
you probably wont, considering ive put in 434 hands this month so far. LOL! [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]


also, in the rare event you do get called "BY WORSE" remember that "worse on the flop" is a relative term, since the "best hand" on the flop does NOT necessarily equate to the MOST equity, which is BY FAR the most important facet of a hand. (obviously, more important in omaha, but certainly very relevant to holdem)



Are you referring to the likelihood of being bluffed off of the best hand? great post btw, as usual.


[/ QUOTE ]
thx - no, i mean that on that flop, even a hand like 6x (T6o, for example) has an equity advantage over 22, so its actually not in 22's best interest to put anything in on the turn, even though a pair is technically the best hand and "better" then ten high.

[ QUOTE ]


You are leaving out balancing here. If you're always checking this flop with marginal hands with showdown value and betting with monsters or air, then it becomes very easy to exploit and very quickly heads up. If you check behind here with QQ/A8/Ahxh/etc then I'd be more inclined to agree with checking, but on a flop this wet and easy to get value on - I would almost never check those.

[/ QUOTE ]
1. balancing is irrelevant
2. i want them to know i have a weak hand when i check the flop (weird?)
3. i actually will check some of those hands you mention, as well.
4. more important, you call oop, this flop comes, are you check folding a pair? what is the weakest draw you'll c/r or c/c, lets ignore the possibility of a bet size read (ie you think full pot is strong from a pfr and half pot is weak)

[MadScientist]

This thread is excellent. My first thought was to bet flop since A high would call.
However, after playing around with pokerstove and reading this thread, I'm now convinced that we are about a 40:60 dog to his range (actually to a wide variety of ranges he could hold) and so we should check. However, I think with that kind of equity it becomes automatic to call any pot sized or less bet on the turn.
Thx to all for changing the way I think about such spots.

[Bulletproof Monk]

bet the flop so we check the turn?

[bozzer]

i usually check on these sorts of boards when i don't have a good enough hand to fire again on the turn. that sound ok?