A couple of quotes by Nate tha' Great

[cartman]

In September I started this thread in reference to a couple of specific posts by Nate in th archives. I am curious how frequently you guys check/call both the turn and river heads up after having the lead on the flop. Also, for the sake of posterity, maybe Nate can elaborate and/or clear up any misinterpretations I/we may have had about his statements.

Thanks,
Cartman

[Wynton]

This is difficult to answer in the abstract. I have no idea how often I do it.

But if I do take this line, I think it's going to occur where I have a showdownable hand (as defined by all the relevant circumstances) and I consider my opponent a LAG tard type, who can be expected to bet with air and are, consequently, difficult to read.

[___1___]

[ QUOTE ]
I am curious how frequently you guys check/call both the turn and river heads up after having the lead on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent question and something I've been thinking about a lot lately. At this point I have nothing to add other than Stoxtrader does this quite a bit (more than most at least). I'll check to see if he minds me posting some hands for discussion...


___1___

[The Funky Llama]

i do it a lot, probably more than most on this forum. I like it a lot as well. You've got to be careful if you keep doing it against thinking LAGS because they'll own you

[New001]

I think in theory it should be really bad to do, because a smart player should realize that you're going to showdown most of the time when this happens, but that doesn't stop these idiots from betting both streets with Q-high.

I definitely do it sometimes, but I can be convinced it sucks.

[Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
I think in theory it should be really bad to do, because a smart player should realize that you're going to showdown most of the time when this happens.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is an upside to that if he catches on: draws will get more free cards.

[Surf]

[ QUOTE ]
i do it a lot, probably more than most on this forum. I like it a lot as well. You've got to be careful if you keep doing it against thinking LAGS because they'll own you

[/ QUOTE ]

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
I think in theory it should be really bad to do, because a smart player should realize that you're going to showdown most of the time when this happens

[/ QUOTE ]
I am? Plenty of the time that I check the big streets after betting the turn it is because I have a draw that can't win unimproved, I'm pretty sure the opponent isn't folding and I think he is going to pop me on the turn. When he sees me check the river after checking the turn, he can't tell if I am going to a showdown as you say or if I missed my draw and know that he won't be bluffed. And when I check the turn, I could be folding, raising or calling. I don't think it is necessarily obvious what you are doing.

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
In September I started this thread in reference to a couple of specific posts by Nate in th archives. I am curious how frequently you guys check/call both the turn and river heads up after having the lead on the flop. Also, for the sake of posterity, maybe Nate can elaborate and/or clear up any misinterpretations I/we may have had about his statements.

Thanks,
Cartman

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple of points of clarification. There are really two separate concepts going on here.

The first concept, and far and away the more important one, is that you *don't* always need to call the river when you call the turn. Obviously, this requires some delicacy and certain feel for your opponent, above and beyond what you'd get with Pokertracker type stats. But against either a TAG type opponent who is judicious with her river bets, or a weak player who is only too happy to show down anything that could plausbily win, this is an important play to have in your handbook.

FWIW, I find that this works especially well when you're running well, or your opponent is running badly.

I'm talking, of course, about those situations in which you're way ahead/way behind or mostly ahead/mostly behind; you'll make this play all the time when you're on a draw that misses.

There *is* an in between case too. Say that you have 76s on a 742(Q) board. You check-raised the flop and your opponent raised the turn when the queen appeared. You might not quite have the odds to draw to a five-outer, and the hand might not quite be worth calling down, but against certain opponents, you can probably credit yourself with an extra couple of outs for those times that you still have the best hand *and* you gain a free showdown.

The second concept is giving up the lead on the turn in a mostly ahead/mostly behind situation. I'm still not a big advocate of this play on a turn blank, whether or not you are planning on making a "sexy" fold on the river if your opponent bets both big streets.

I can think of one situation where I use this play fairly often, which is where you have ace-high on a drawless, paired board like TT4(7). I find that opponents *do* call the flop here fairly often with the intention of making a play on the turn. But if you think opponents below about the 50/100 limit are doing a lot of this on more normal sorts of boards, you're either playing a little paranoid or you need to work on your table selection.

[helpmeout]

Just read stox's Jan article in the 2+2 mag that sums it up.