ATo in BB - simple flop question

[private joker]

I'll just add in that I've played nearly a thousand hands of 5/10 6-max on PokerStars this week, and if this hand happened to me online in this situation, I'd be betting here about 93% of the time. 5% would be to mix it up and c/r, and 2% would be a misclick.

Granted, my online stakes are small stakes, and players in mid-stakes (15/30 and up) are more likely to bet this flop, so I can see why you might checkraise. But I still think betting is the best play as a default.

[private joker]

One more thing:

[ QUOTE ]
We both agree that we should bet/3-bet, right? No disagreement here. But you make it sound like there's no alternative.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never said that, and I addressed this misguided complaint in my last post. I'm just arguing for betting as the default play given no other information. The poll options don't let us pick two. They force us to pick one. If I had to pick one, I think betting is clearly the best choice. But saying it's the best doesn't mean there's no alternative.

[ QUOTE ]
Can we get some mid-stakes online pros (maybe specifically Full Tilt ones) to post here and get their prospective?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's "perspective."

[img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Garland]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It sounds to me like there are some inflexible people out there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Confucius say in a vacuum all player passive. If button is bet happy, he is not in vacuum

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm willing to bet Confucius didn't live in the age of internet poker. In a vacuum all live button player passive. In a vacuum all online button player aggressive.

Garland

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It sounds to me like there are some inflexible people out there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Confucius say in a vacuum all player passive. If button is bet happy, he is not in vacuum

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm willing to bet Confucius didn't live in the age of internet poker. In a vacuum all live button player passive. In a vacuum all online button player aggressive.

Garland

[/ QUOTE ]

since when did you become retarded? ALLL???

I'll give you a hint - the OP never said what limit.

[Garland]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll just add in that I've played nearly a thousand hands of 5/10 6-max on PokerStars this week, and if this hand happened to me online in this situation, I'd be betting here about 93% of the time. 5% would be to mix it up and c/r, and 2% would be a misclick.

Granted, my online stakes are small stakes, and players in mid-stakes (15/30 and up) are more likely to bet this flop, so I can see why you might checkraise. But I still think betting is the best play as a default.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only small stakes, but also 6-max.

[ QUOTE ]
I never said that [sound like there's no alternative], and I addressed this misguided complaint in my last post. I'm just arguing for betting as the default play given no other information.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it was the tone of which you made your initial post:

[ QUOTE ]
Are you guys trying to make me cry? ... Argh. This is so standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

The tone of that post made me believe that you wanted to lock the thread because it was absolutely stupid for anyone to even argue for a check-raise alternative. Admit it, you were probably on the verge of doing it. With the tone and content of that post alone, my belief is that a lot of people who would even think of expressing a post containing "check-raise" might have backed off in fear of being ridiculed.

[ QUOTE ]
It's "perspective."

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn it, I'm intensely studying "prospective" and "retrospective" scheduling of amortization schedules for my test. I knew this would bite me in the a**.

Garland

[Garland]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll give you a hint - the OP never said what limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll give what I assume to be reasonable. He's posting in a "Medium Stakes" limit forum. I'm going to assume he's posting a medium stakes hand from 15/30 to 40/80.

[ QUOTE ]
ALLL???

[/ QUOTE ]

When I use the word "all" and "vacuum" in the same sentence, I mean more than 50%.

[ QUOTE ]
since when did you become retarded?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for being professional and not making personal insults. I always appreciated the fact we could be civil around here despite our differences.

Garland

[*TT*]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
since when did you become retarded?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for being professional and not making personal insults. I always appreciated the fact we could be civil around here despite our differences.

Garland

[/ QUOTE ]

no differences, just wondering why you have been foaming at the mouth lately. You were never so argumentative when you were wrong in the past, its as if your a pit bull lately - never backing down and digging the hole deeper and deeper. The old Garland was much easer to debate with, the new one is... well, annoying. Bring back the old Garland.

[Garland]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
since when did you become retarded?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for being professional and not making personal insults. I always appreciated the fact we could be civil around here despite our differences.

Garland

[/ QUOTE ]

no differences, just wondering why you have been foaming at the mouth lately. You were never so argumentative when you were wrong in the past, its as if your a pit bull lately - never backing down and digging the hole deeper and deeper. The old Garland was much easer to debate with, the new one is... well, annoying. Bring back the old Garland.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no "new Garland" or "old Garland". If I believe I'm right, I'll fight tooth and nail. If I realize I'm wrong I'll admit it. I think most people know that around here. If you haven't noticed, I've already made concessions and apologized in this thread alone. I still think I have a point about some people being a bit "inflexible" in their thinking. My one and only point now is we are playing in what is most likely to be an aggressive online game, and although I would prefer to bet/3-bet the hand, I wouldn't hate it if someone were to suggest why check-raising would be better.

I still don't like being called "retarded". That would be true if I'm "old" or "new", "right" or "wrong".

Garland

[Mr Rick]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you guys trying to make me cry? Why are people so afraid of betting their damn hands?

Checkraise? Who? It's a limped pot; what makes you think someone's going to take a stab? Just bet for the love of Christ.

Argh. This is so standard.

OK, I'll try to stop being grouchy. Continue discussing the merits of checking TPTK in a limped pot... maybe I will learn something. After all, that's... what... we're... here for.

[/ QUOTE ]
I play 10/20 live @ FW and I would typically bet out in this hand because there is a fair chance the flop would get checked through. But there are times (maybe 20%-30%) where I can count on the button to bet if checked to, so then I go for a C/R.

Online is a very different game in my experience though I have never played Full Tilt. My experience was that it gets checked through infrequently. My default play would be to C/R and bet out in the cases where I knew the other players to be passive/cautious (which would be about 20%).

The problem with betting out when a C/R would have been available is that it fails to protect a vulnerable hand against up to two other players. My experience both live and online play is that when a BB bets out nobody puts them on top pair and everybody is willing to call a flop bet with even just one overcard.

There is another advantage to check raising occasionally/frequently on the flop. Over time people become less willing to bet in position when checked to and it opens up steal opportunities from SB and BB on the turn (as if I had just whiffed on a flop check raise).

[Hobbs.]

you know we can mix things up by betting this flop with a wide range of hands.