True, I could use some help here.

[GAL]

OK, Jay, I didn't really post in this thread to give any real advice on how to play this specific hand but moreso just to point out to OP that Trues checking a good hand to balance play theory doesn't really apply to this hand, in fact this hand is just about the worst example of applying that concept.

You seem to be looking for a strategy answer to why checking the flop is better than betting the flop here even after people have given reasons, just because you don't agree betting is better.

Here are 2 reasons I bet this flop.
1. I bet most flops if I am PFR or RR, it makes it easier to get paid when I have a big hand....blah, blah, you know the rest.
2. If I check here unless the Villan is the most passive player ever he will bet this 100% IMO.

Also betting here is not about maximising EV, I can't think of a single hand were up against here that we have a big +EV edge over. We all know no worse hands call us on this flop thus our hand becomes a bluff, would you check this flop holding 33? because no worse hands call that either.

[Jay Riall]

GAL

To your reasons to bet flop -
1. You really shouldn't I probably check more flops than I bet at tbh as a preflop raiser. This is pretty standard amongst most posters here imo.
2. Your wrong. People will check behind on this flop a lot unless they are over-aggro. Also, if he bets with 100% of his hands, but only calls your bet when you are beat then c/c is vastly superior.

I don't want to turn this hand into a bluff since it still has value. 33 only really has value as a bluff now.

[BobAllinSki]

I dunno, if I cant call 2 streets I lead, betting may feel like a bluff but just calling is like saying "I have a pair - rob me", betting may just achieve winning the pot when you were ahead anyway, but check calling just puts money into a pot where the only chance you have of winning is if villain has AK and decides not to fire again.

I'm not saying check calling is wrong, but I'd only want to do it when I feel my hand is strong enough to take some heat.

I'd discount what I say somewhat though, in the games I play in this could be value bet all day.

[natzucowww]

checking the flop seems like it lets him outplay us if he's willing to fire the turn. he knows we have something after we call the flop and our akdiamonds is betting the flop so is he barreling the turn cause we chckd or did he smoothcll overpairs pf, or flop a set. dunno but we're saying you dictate the hand after we raised pf. maybe the buttons call and our smallish raise pf kept him in with kqclubs we fire the flop he calls, check the turn he takes a free card and we block the river. that's not a great line but in combination with the fact that he might fold the flop since we have no read that he's a nit pf, it could be an argument for leading after we raise it up pf.

[Jay Riall]

If he's really going to multistreet bluff us a lot I just check/call him down.

[BobAllinSki]

[ QUOTE ]
If he's really going to multistreet bluff us a lot I just check/call him down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, if villain multi street bluffs I love check calling here.

[1C5]

[ QUOTE ]

I like just flat calling pf here with JJ tbh.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the reason? I can see calling with position but out of position wouldn't a reraise be better here? Or are you just calling 100% for set value with JJ?

[Jay Riall]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I like just flat calling pf here with JJ tbh.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the reason? I can see calling with position but out of position wouldn't a reraise be better here? Or are you just calling 100% for set value with JJ?

[/ QUOTE ]

He doesn't want to bloat the pot oop with a hand that if called is going to be very marginal and difficult to play. He's not calling for set value he's guna play pokah. Not sure if I agree but its interesting.

[natzucowww]

true, but here we have no read so why give him the chance to get excited about running us over rather than siding with aggression in an unknown situation.

[1C5]

It sucks trying to play poker OOP imo.