Another more complicated Agree or Disagree

[Nezzar]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok now for simple reason why its sometimes correct to bet out.

If you want to bluff, betting out allows to apply the maximum pressure on your opponent (pot sized bet), whereas check raising forces you to risk 2x the pot. So if you checkraise with a pot sized bet your bluffs must be successful signifigantly more often, yet the pot odds given to the opponent are exactly the same.

Why do I feel like I'm posting something that is covered in maybe the third chapter of The Rules of Holdem?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ever heard of implied odds? something to think about when comparing tactics

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok now for simple reason why its sometimes correct to bet out.

If you want to bluff, betting out allows to apply the maximum pressure on your opponent (pot sized bet), whereas check raising forces you to risk 2x the pot. So if you checkraise with a pot sized bet your bluffs must be successful signifigantly more often, yet the pot odds given to the opponent are exactly the same.

Why do I feel like I'm posting something that is covered in maybe the third chapter of The Rules of Holdem?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ever heard of implied odds? something to think about when comparing tactics

[/ QUOTE ]

If you read my final sentence the wrong way, its not that I felt like I was explaining something really obvious to everyone and being a dick about it. It was that I felt like whatever I was explaining to myself was really obvious, and that it was weird that I was typing it in this forum without having a firm understanding of whether it made sense given that I somehow play poker for a living.

[Big_Jim]

Check/raising, with draws leads to really awkward stack sizes on the turn, especially OOP.

When you go for the bet 3/bet, having him call that bet is still a much less awkward spot than if you had c/red and he called. There's a lot less in the pot, so it's not so devastating to get blown out. Not to mention, you can get a lot more money in the pot while you actually have a hand, instead of just a draw.

All the stuff about stealing cheap pots is good, too.

Another good reason is that you can get him to bluff-raise, by leading in some spots, which makes up for usually 3 or 4 cbets that he would have made.

[schwza]

i haven't read the whole thread, so sorry if i'm repeating something.

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

my assumption is: they always fold to a lead (but not neccessarily to a c/r). then you should lead very often.

obviously that's kind of a dumb example but you can easily make a more reasonable one and get the same conclusion. for example, villain calls leads with draws and weak made hands but always raises strong hands (so you lead for info), villain raises leads very often but plays too tight against 3-bets, villain is a world champion caliber player when playing in cbet pots, etc.

[Nezzar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok now for simple reason why its sometimes correct to bet out.

If you want to bluff, betting out allows to apply the maximum pressure on your opponent (pot sized bet), whereas check raising forces you to risk 2x the pot. So if you checkraise with a pot sized bet your bluffs must be successful signifigantly more often, yet the pot odds given to the opponent are exactly the same.

Why do I feel like I'm posting something that is covered in maybe the third chapter of The Rules of Holdem?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ever heard of implied odds? something to think about when comparing tactics

[/ QUOTE ]

If you read my final sentence the wrong way, its not that I felt like I was explaining something really obvious to everyone and being a dick about it. It was that I felt like whatever I was explaining to myself was really obvious, and that it was weird that I was typing it in this forum without having a firm understanding of whether it made sense given that I somehow play poker for a living.

[/ QUOTE ]

Curtains,

I meant that if you check-raise you give opponent less implied than if you lead.

[curtains]

Didnt I say that using different langauge (aka talking about how the stacks are shallower on one hand and deeper in the other)