Don't make a bet that a worse hand can't call?

[HitNRunPoster]

You have 99, you raise PF and a fit-or-fold player calls you. The flop comes 762 rainbow.

What do you do and why, and how does it relate to the axiom that you shouldn't make a bet that a worse hand won't call (I'm not saying that this axiom contains absolute truth, just that I've heard good players say it and I'd like to know what they mean by that (how they interpret it) ).

Any further discussion of this concept would be appreciated.

Please only reply if you have something to contribute to the discussion.

[AdamL]

I'm not a good NL player, so this is all new to me, but the question seems interesting enough that any attempt in the spirit of inquiry will be fun. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

I guess we first need to flesh out exactly what constitutes a "worse hand" in each particular hand.

Here I guess worse calling hands include overs, baby pairs, 87s, 97s, 65s, 86s, A7 A2 and A6. You're doing pretty well against these hands.

Next factor in what will happen if he calls and improves. How much will that cost you (if *anything*?)

I think you'd have the information you need to determine your bet size. If EV of bet size is less than the money it costs you when they have those hands, hit, and you pay off, then you need to make a bet that they will not call with a worse hand. In those cases my hypothesis would be that you'd bet as little as possible (yet still with him folding a worse hand) in order to minimize losses against his better hands (on the flop) while taking it down.

Thoughts?

[Abramovic]

2 reasons for betting here.

1. For value (this is worse hands calling - str draws, top pair hands etc)
2. For protection - your hand is vulnerable to overcards and cards which may complete a straight.

[kazana]

Before the river, protection takes precedence imo. I'd rather fold out weaker hands than allowing them profitable (re)draws.

Once you've made it to the river, the 'axiom' is your guide to bet-sizing.

[Freelancer]

if the board is really dry like this one I might occasionally check against a basic abc player. Protection isn't terribly important because most abc players don't call preflop with a lot of overcards (mostly PP's) and there's little value in betting since you'll fold out a lot of stuff you actually beat.

checking is also nice to 'balance' your play a bit, if people saw you check the flop a few times they'll respect your c-bets more in the future.



Having said that I still bet this flop for the following reasons;
c/c one bet or making one c-bet have close to the same ev.
I prefer having a crazy image so if I find a spot where checking and betting have an ev thats quite close together I prefer betting over checking. Since your definitley not missing a lot of value with betting over c/c I'd bet here (if he calls I'm pretty much done with the hand.

[Dan Bitel]

vs a fit or fold player...this is an obv bet. Sure he won't call with a worse hand, but he won't bluff with one either. So the bet is 100% purely for protection.

Most players will call a bet here with a worse hand, so we can easily bet for value.

Vs big bluffers...checking is prob best

[Freelancer]

This is probably a more interesting situation with 44 or 55 because there aren't really any PP's he'd call with that you beat...

[BobAllinSki]

I'm pretty sure that against an opponent that bluffs correctly when shown weakness with multiple streets of play bluffing with the best hand can be more profitable than calling down, I just lack the math skills to work this out.

[AKQJ10]

As stated by several, protecting 99 against any ten, jack, queen, king, or ace is essential. KK, maybe even QQ, I approach differently. In those cases, I would probably also bet, but in that case my bet is to get value from 7x-JJ.

[ QUOTE ]
fit-or-fold player calls you

[/ QUOTE ]

This means that your bet is less for value, because you're probably not going to be called without a strong draw or a pair.

It also means that the informational component of your bet, often justifiably poo-pooed, is pretty valuable here. If you get called, depending on how tricky F-or-F is with something like a set or 76, you have reason to be careful.

[HitNRunPoster]

Thanks for the responses guys.

I think I'd bet 2/3 pot, no more, because this is a basically a bluff. I think 2/3 would shut down AK and it would lose the least to QQ. Betting half-pot I don't know what he would do with something like AK, which would make the turn very difficult for me, I'd probably end up letting him see a river for 3:1 odds (not good), and I'd have to check to him twice (not good).

However, betting pot size is also +EV here, just less +EV than betting 2/3, giving him a range of:

AK, AQ, QQ-22.

Anyone have any comments on this?