|
|
#41
11-18-2007, 08:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: NL50: AA. Me gets suspicious...
[ QUOTE ]
If we check, and he bets, and we only call, he's essentially making a winning play against our range, because a) his bet has folding equity (i.e. he can win the pot in TWO ways now, by making the best hand or by making us fold) b) he gets a free card if he's drawing against us c) he gets to cheaply show down, since the dynamic in the hand has changed to a mode where you are going to continue to play passively and check the river to him, giving him the option to take a showdown. [/ QUOTE ] Good points Renton. For point B, do you mean he gets a free card when he checks behind on the turn? If so, disregard the rest of my post. If not, I don't really agree with point B though, because it really isn't a free card. If I were villain and semibluffing with a draw, I would be thinking that I'm betting $7 into an 11$ pot. Assuming opponent calls, I am getting 18:7 (11+7:7), which would be the case when opponent has a good hand. So, I'm still getting charged a price, but this is made up for by the other advantages you mentioned, especially fold equity. Besides this discussion, I think that betting is preferable on the turn. If raised, we can really narrow his hands down and confidently fold. I think c/c has it's place, but to do it, you need a read on the opponent and you really have to c/c a river to let him bluff off his chips. c/c turn then c/fold river doesn't really make any sense. 
|
|
#43
11-18-2007, 09:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL50: AA. Me gets suspicious...
Paying $7 for a card is not getting a free-card, whether you call it or you bet it.
|
|
#45
11-18-2007, 11:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL50: AA. Me gets suspicious...
free as in villain makes the choice in how the turn goes down not free like literally free of charge.
|
|
#46
11-18-2007, 11:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL50: AA. Me gets suspicious...
No. I'm not.
Assuming 0 FE, because we're considering the case where he gets check/called down, the EV for Villain is exactly the same whether he bets $7 or calls $7. He has the free-card option on the turn, but betting is opting out. If you can explain the fundamental equivalence between checking behind and betting $7 with 0 fold-equity, then you'll have convinced me that betting $7 is the same as taking a free-card.
|
|
#47
11-18-2007, 11:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL50: AA. Me gets suspicious...
first of all, he definitely has folding equity vs our range.
secondly, paying for a card always involves calling, and never involves betting. For example, lets say we have AA on a J63 flop with two spades (we have no As). We make a continuation bet, villain with 98 of spades raises our bet, and we call. We just gave him a free card. If we knew for a fact that he had a flush draw, then the correct play barring a few weird circumstances would be to 3bet. Instead, we A) allowed him to make the plus ev (vs our range) play of semi bluff raising a flush draw B)gave him a free turn, and C) are most likely going to give him a free river if the turn isn't a spade.
|
|
#48
11-18-2007, 11:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL50: AA. Me gets suspicious...
[ QUOTE ]
if we check, he bets 7, and we call, he got a free card. [/ QUOTE ] I was operating under the assumptions made by this sentence.
|
|
#50
11-18-2007, 11:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: NL50: AA. Me gets suspicious...
[ QUOTE ]
first of all, he definitely has folding equity vs our range. secondly, paying for a card always involves calling, and never involves betting. For example, lets say we have AA on a J63 flop with two spades (we have no As). We make a continuation bet, villain with 98 of spades raises our bet, and we call. We just gave him a free card. If we knew for a fact that he had a flush draw, then the correct play barring a few weird circumstances would be to 3bet. Instead, we A) allowed him to make the plus ev (vs our range) play of semi bluff raising a flush draw B)gave him a free turn, and C) are most likely going to give him a free river if the turn isn't a spade. [/ QUOTE ] Where in this paragraph have you explained how betting is the same as "getting a free card". You've said several times that it is, but without explanation. Consider this example. Suppose in the hand OP posted, Villain had pocket Kings. Against our hand, AA, Villain's hand is a drawing hand. So suppose we check and Villain bets $7 and we call. Is he "getting a free card" there? What if he has a set? Is that "getting a free card" as well? Is betting in position always getting a free card provided you don't get raised? IMO, your use of "getting a free card" being the same as "not calling" is too general. Given that definition, open-shoving 1000BBs preflop is the same as getting five free-cards.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
