AKs in SB Early 2$ - Folded!

[Sherman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Were only getting called by hands that beat us, so were not making any money with this bet unless he has an underpair which we can fold on the turn anyway, at a massively reduced risk.


matt

[/ QUOTE ]

I somewhat disagree here. CBets aren't about making worse hands call and best hands fold. They're pretty much semi-bluff bets, regardless of whether or not you hit the flop. I don't think they fall into value bet town often :P. Also if I'm holding a pair, under, over, etc. I'm going to fire if a preflop raiser checks to me. Normally I'm firing a much larger bet than half pot.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes but your a good player MJ. How many typical $2 players are going to fire at a preflop raiser with a pair of 7's here, and for more than half the pot? Maybe Im just too used to the battlegrounds I occupy, but we are gna get called down so often here that I think its just spewing bigtime. I think the value in this hand is to get to the turn as cheaply as possible and evaluate. If your bet is some kind of blocking bet, then I think thats fine, but if this is a c-bet I just think its a really low equity play. Its a dangerous flop, which hits most of the hands in his range, only the weakest tightest opponents are gna fold to this bet (2$ tournies dont = tight oppos [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img])and we have a draw to a monsterous hand/draw that we dont want taking off of.


[ QUOTE ]
It's a tough spot on the flop, but I think you have to go ahead and bet at it. Here is why:

What hands in your PF range are you checking on this flop? Are you ever checking AA? Are you ever checking AQ? Are you checking a set? No never. The board is too scary. You are always betting those hands to protect your hand. So if you check this flop, you should look real weak. A good opponent will put you squarly on AK or a lower pair and fire a PSB every time and you will have to fold.

Of course our villain in this hand is probably terrible. But if you want to think about how to play against good opponents, I think you have to c-bet.


[/ QUOTE ]


Agree, checking here against a strong opponent is passive, but over aggression is gonna cost you a lot of chips here in the long run. What about the (hypothetical) skilled villains calling range. He only folds a lower pair or AK (unlikely holding) and calls with any part of the flop or draws. Then we check the turn (unless we hit a ten of course) and he bets and we loose our c-bet. You dont have to win EVERY pot, if its a dangerous board, and were against a strong opponent, sometimes playing passively is +EV.

I know thats hard to accept [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] but if his range includes more hands that are gna play back at us if we c-bet than hands that are gna fold (very likely), surely its a -EV play?

[/ QUOTE ]

But it is fine if he plays back at our c-bet on this flop. We can safely fold. He isn't doing it with air against our range on this board.

Firing a c-bet on this flop is a semi-bluff. We likely don't have the best hand, but we give ourselves some chance to take it down on the flop and if we don't, we have some outs on the turn.

Like I said, we are also firing on this board for metagame purposes. If our villain is always going to play back at our c-bets on this board, he is in big trouble because our range includes a lot of strong hands that don't mind felting.

[supair]

mmm, good reasoning sherm, especially from the metagame P.O.V. My only qualm is that if your going to cbet here, then there arent many flops your not cbetting, which surely makes you a little exploitable? This is about the most coordinated, dangerous board that could have flopped and I just dont buy the point that if we check we get taken off the hand by someone with a worse holding. If Im up against someone whos good enough to bet into my check with a pp lower than the board, all the best to him.

I also dont think it is fine if we get played back at. If we get raised, weve taken ourselves out of a potentially very nice situation, I desperatley want to see the turn here against a weaker opponent whos likely to make errors, and if we check allowing HIM to do the betting, his errors are going to be more forthcoming. If we bet 1/2 to 2/3rds of the pot, and he gets frisky and shoves, were done.

I suppose this is just a question of style rather than actual technical correctness, and both options, especially in this situation, have their merits.

[MJBuddy]

Supair, I really have no idea how good this particular player is just yet. Readless, I'd rather fault on the side of aggression.

I do CBet nearly 100% of the time HU. I just don't see any reason not to, especially at these limits. It works frequently enough, even on risky boards, to make it valuable enough to use every time.

[Sherman]

[ QUOTE ]
mmm, good reasoning sherm, especially from the metagame P.O.V. My only qualm is that if your going to cbet here, then there arent many flops your not cbetting, which surely makes you a little exploitable? This is about the most coordinated, dangerous board that could have flopped and I just dont buy the point that if we check we get taken off the hand by someone with a worse holding. If Im up against someone whos good enough to bet into my check with a pp lower than the board, all the best to him.

I also dont think it is fine if we get played back at. If we get raised, weve taken ourselves out of a potentially very nice situation, I desperatley want to see the turn here against a weaker opponent whos likely to make errors, and if we check allowing HIM to do the betting, his errors are going to be more forthcoming. If we bet 1/2 to 2/3rds of the pot, and he gets frisky and shoves, were done.

I suppose this is just a question of style rather than actual technical correctness, and both options, especially in this situation, have their merits.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, I don't c-bet if I am in position here. I take the free card every time. Which is why I am not c-betting 100% of the time.