|
|
#71
07-21-2007, 10:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Donking into the raiser, *theory*
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] wpr101, Every flop? All we have to do is hope they fold no pair which they have most of the time. [/ QUOTE ] This is retarded. [/ QUOTE ] lol, ok. Maybe you could explain why or shut up. Isn't that the point of this thread? Seriously, the atitude of this forum is so tiring to deal with. I think its plainly obvious that the following is true: 1) Some opponents open a lot of hands in the button/cuttoff 2) Most of the time those hands flop no pair 3) Most players can't call down with no pair 4) Leading into their pot doesn't need to work a high % of the time to be a +EV play, just like all bluffs we are laying ourselves odds b/c there is money already in the pot. I'm not saying lead every flop but I think its clear that with the right image against most players leading is often higher EV then check/folding. [/ QUOTE ] I asked what type of flop is a good one to donk bluff on and you said every flop you moron. [/ QUOTE ] Oh I'm sorry, I thought you understood what I was saying. Donking in should be based on your image, how likely you believe your opponent is to muck a weak/no pair hand, and how many outs your hand will have against your opponents calling range. Sometimes board texture can effect this. However, a T87 w/flush draw board isn't as good to lead as a A93 rainbow flop because on the prior board your opponents range will want to continue more often. This is similiar to when you raise preflop and they call, which flops are bad to c-bet. However, to me board texture is the least important consideration and then only as a function of how many outs my hand will have versus their calling range. [/ QUOTE ] Okay thanks. Sorry about the confusion. Just a few more comments/questions: [ QUOTE ] Donking in should be based on your image [/ QUOTE ] Based off this it sounds like we should be doing it against the more thinking players. Most bad players are not going to have PokerTracker and thus may be unaware of what our image is. [ QUOTE ] However, a T87 w/flush draw board isn't as good to lead as a A93 rainbow flop because on the prior board your opponents range will want to continue more often. [/ QUOTE ] It seems like the T87 suited board would be more appropriate for a double or triple barrel bluff (initiated via donking). Because imagine if you are in villian shoes and holding QQ, it's going to be hard to call down three streets with that hand especially when a 6/J/suit comes. I agree the A93r board is a good one to do it on but only as a single street bluff. Just because when he just calls the flop his hand gets narrowed down to a lot of one pair ace hands... it would be overly optimistic to think that we could fold out big aces a large portion of the time. 
|
|
#72
07-21-2007, 11:01 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Donking into the raiser, *theory*
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I rarely donk into the PFR. I am almost always bluffing when I do and I just mash the pot button. They always fold. Sounds like I should do it more I guess but I really think checking the flop 100% to the PFR fits better into my overall gameplan / ppls tendency to cbet too often. [/ QUOTE ] this is pretty much exactly where i stand right now. i feel like a jackass quoting such a successful players post and making it seem like these were my thoughts, but they are. for most of my career at anythign above 2/4, i've just checked to the pfr and CR bluffed a lottt. this has been successful for me, and somewhat of a trapping style that i have. anyways, now though i'm really looking to expand on that and lead sometimes (because i think it's necessary and i'm really staring at relative position when i'm thinking about leading in m-way pots). a major reason tbh is that i am friends with someone who is a durrr fanboy, and says he donks a LOT. this is kind of a weird reason, but if someone is successful, there has to be reasons to do it, etc. even if i at sometime chose to that checking to the pfr is the best thing, i want to know that i at least experimented or whatever with donk betting. basically, i'm looking at points in time to use this more than just "looks like he missed- it's cheaper to donk bet than CR; let's do that!" i'll report my findings [*please note that i'll probably report my findings in a few hundred thousand hands by saying: "haha you donks, i found out where it's awesome to donk into the pfr- hahaha i won't tell you"] [/ QUOTE ] I'm surprised it took so long before a few people said this. I'm still somewhat skeptical about overusing donk bets, but I would like to incorporate them into my game a tiny bit more than currently. By the way, where does the name donk bet originate from?
|
|
#73
07-23-2007, 06:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Donking into the raiser, *theory*
[ QUOTE ]
So most of your checks without initiative are check-folds ? [/ QUOTE ] ive been staying at the venetian w/o internet, so this is my first chance to respond to this thread. if this is needless bumpage, my apologies, and im leaving vegas tomorrow (so woohoo, more internet for me) but: yes, esp. in multiway pots, if i check, im typically check folding. sometimes calling or raising, though, cant be too predictable there! [ QUOTE ] I would also love to know why - "being out of position" and "calling a preflop raise" are leaks... [/ QUOTE ] Im sure you'd love to know why they are leaks. And in moderation they are not. [ QUOTE ] This would mean that re-raising or calling AA out of position is a leak. Calling preflop with certain hands has a tonne more value than re-raising them more often than not. Sometimes there are many other factors that can increase the value in calling hands as opposed to raising them. [/ QUOTE ] good example, true!!!! [qoute]Each of the examples you have a hand that really cannot stand a raise... and often the best way for villians to combat donk bets is to raise, often with nothing. [/ QUOTE ] well, actually, i think you'll see that even though villains should raise in some spots, they would more often just call. [ QUOTE ] Can someone give an estimation of %s that you would it with midpair vs. set vs. air? [/ QUOTE ] lol, no.
|
|
#74
07-23-2007, 06:08 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Donking into the raiser, *theory*
[ QUOTE ]
I think most people cbet too much. That is a big leak of theirs which can be exploited. But to exploit this you have to let them cbet. How people react to donk bets is more unknown. Some people always raise donkbets for example. Against people who don't cbet much I am much more likely to donkbet. [/ QUOTE ] wow, ok, you said it yourself. yes, some people always cbet, therefore checking to them is nice. but if they also always raise a donk bet, isnt donk betting naturally better? (with anything you want alot of money going in) [ QUOTE ] hand 1 is a terrible spot to donk - it's a terrific value bluff what in the world are you doing - trying to fold out QQ/KK? [/ QUOTE ] was this directed at me? i'm not check calling w/ such a weak draw + weak made hand if the pfr bets, but i think leading out has a higher expectation. i dunno what im supposed to say there?
|
|
#75
07-23-2007, 06:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Donking into the raiser, *theory*
[ QUOTE ]
I was with you in the first paragraph, i wanted to hear something... by the time i got to the hands i threw up a little bit in my mouth. I really hate all 3 hands all action all streets... [/ QUOTE ] ouch, that stings bro =) but lucky for me the hands worked out nicely for me. [ QUOTE ] What's a good flop to donk bluff in on heads up from a 6 max game? Say raiser is CO (20/16) and makes 4xbb raise. You call in the SB. I'm guessing a good flop is like: 67 T? [/ QUOTE ] uhh depends what you have. not a good flop to lead with air though. [ QUOTE ] Here what we are really looking at is how to use our relative position to squeeze the raiser and either force him to expose the strength of this hand, or more likely lay the hand down with the threat of others still to act. They are actually very different concepts imo. It would still be a donkbet imo if the raiser has absolute position over all players in the pot and you are first to act. [/ QUOTE ] good stuff, and you're right, alot of the times when im donk betting it's more so to expose positional advantages or disadvantages.
|
|
#76
07-23-2007, 06:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Donking into the raiser, *theory*
i would much rather donk bet when i have an amount of equity, not when i have complete air.
i think most of the responses here are confused as to when to donkbet and when not to donkbet. since we're doing something that has a profound effect on the hand, like transferring the impetus, it's kind of dumb to not have a foundation of the move (like having equity). makes it more than a stab, we've got another bullet back there.
|
|
#77
07-23-2007, 07:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Donking into the raiser, *theory*
[ QUOTE ]
I rarely donk into the PFR. I am almost always bluffing when I do and I just mash the pot button. They always fold. Sounds like I should do it more I guess but I really think checking the flop 100% to the PFR fits better into my overall gameplan / ppls tendency to cbet too often. [/ QUOTE ] but i guess this only goes for the flop right? Don't you ever check/call flop - lead turn? Or don't you check/call flop much?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
