Post Flop Play - Passive Better Than Aggressive...discuss

[Acevader]

I've been thinking a lot of late about post flop play and the situations I find myself in. I keep reaching the same conclusion that passive play seems to work better than aggressive play in full ring games. Obviously if you have a strong draw and good FE you should bet/raise, etc and if you have a strong hand and a board that villain(s) may either have a piece of or a good draw on you should bet/raise accordingly.

I guess what I'm saying is that playing a sound made hand (usually a safe TPTK or two-pair+) or a strong draw aggressively is easy and standard.

However, most of the time in poker we have less than top-pair and I'm wondering if its often better to let people just bet their money off. Am I talking rubbish or anyone else agree. My turn play has become particularly passive as I seem to often check it because I have a nothing hand (i.e. my cbet was looked up (and nothing representable hit)) or because I have something and intend to check-call. This is reflected in my PT stats but yet another regulars seem to be quite aggressive on all 3 streets.

It also seems rare at FR that you'll get three streets of value from a lesser hand. For example, I raise AKo mid and find a caller in the blinds. Flop is K,9,6 rainbow and my c-bet is called. Turn 6. These are the sort of situations where I'm starting to lean towards giving a free card and then insta-calling the inevitable river bet. If it's not forthcoming then I'd expect anything up to a pot-sized bet to be called by the likes of KQ/KJ both of which would be unlikely to call 2/3rds pot on both the turn and then river.

I'm rambling a little. I don't have a coherent point really; sort of opening the floor on the subject.

[el_grande]

I'm not sure I understand "However, most of the time in poker we have less than top-pair and I'm wondering if its often better to let people just bet their money off."

How can calling with less than top pair be standard when they are betting their money off?

BTW - I'm going the other way. I've found some success with the preflop reraise then c-bet play a lot lately. I had 2 live sessions (total of 11hrs) where I was virtually card dead the whole time. I don't think I made better than 1 pair the whole time. It was amazing. BUT I won some pots by reraising light, then c-bet. Worked like a charm.

[Acevader]

I agree with that; there is defo merit in light 3-betting then c-betting at FR.

[ QUOTE ]
How can calling with less than top pair be standard when they are betting their money off?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say it was standard. I'll make up a contrived example of what I'm thinking:

100bb effective, hero is in HJ with AdJs and raises first in. A middle of the road player calls (he knows basics but has weaknesses and plays too many hands).

The flop is Ks,Jh,7c and hero makes a standard continuation bet which villain calls.

Turn is a 6c and what is our play.

It's possibly villain has a weaker jack, two-pair+, Q10, Kx, etc. If we bet again he may call on the draw which will put us in a really tough spot on the river whether he hits it or not since we'll probably move into check-fold mode. He'll fold all hands we beat and maybe (if we are really lucky a few hands we don't (weak-kicker kings). If he was floating he'll fold.

The problem is that maintaining an aggressive line and betting again here doesn't seem to maximize our expectation. However, by going weak we allow him to bet off weaker hands (and believe me they are stupid enough to bet QJ and the likes here) and thus we get value from those weaker hands. The problem is that we also put ourselves in a reverse implied odds situation. An ace could be more harm than good and a jack might just ensure we get stacked. Crucially if villain does have a better hand he can take us to value town on the two remaining bets if we go into check-call mode.

So what is our play here? How do we maximize. It seems to me that betting the turn doesn't really achieve that but similarly check-calling one bet and potentially two is high variance and possible no better in the long run.

For a real example I had the exact sort of scenario against Narena (smart poker) today.

Multi-limp and I'm in BB with K10 and check. Flop K,J,rag and I fire pot. Narena calls. Turn J. A potential trouble card so I go into check-call. Narena bets about half pot and I call. River 10 and I check, he bets just over half (from memory) and I call and pay off AJ. This is the risk - he maximized because I went into check-call.

[RapidEvolution]

It definitely helps to have villain-specific reads here (such as fold to cbet %) as well as an idea of what kinds of hands they'll call or raise with. Being in position with top pair, I find myself bet/folding unless I know will will pay off with 2nd pair or TPWK. I play 25NL and am still getting a handle on what the "default" villain will do, but without reads, I'm apt to play smaller pots (either checking behind on turn, or betting turn and checking river). This may be a leak though lol.

[alex-star]

In your example, I'd check/fold the turn after the second jack appeared unless the villian was a total spewtard.

[Dennisa]

I think in a lot of cases position trumps aggression, and if you have a read, sometimes you just gotta go check/call instead of bet/fold.

[Acevader]

Villain is Smart Poker and made $24k last month at NL$200. So no. He's not a spewtard - however, he is pretty relentless in betting the turn if you give him any hint that you've lost interest in your hand.

[SABR42]

My winrate improved dramatically when I increased my AF by 50%. Take it fwiw.

[Acevader]

[ QUOTE ]
My winrate improved dramatically when I increased my AF by 50%. Take it fwiw.

[/ QUOTE ]

In what way and what circumstances did you increase it. More c/r? More 2nd/3rd barrel? Raising more flops? Turns?

[Effen]

This is why you must pray to the Gods of position.