Carpal Tunnel post: common leaks in the 2+2 game (long)

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

I've been thinking some about the A7 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] hand. One thing to notice is that we will just about never fold a better hand with a bet, and that if opponent is trailing, he will have fewer outs than usual because any heart makes your hand. However, I think you may be overestimating the value of inducing a bluff in this spot. If you have not improved by the turn, then you are not much of a favorite against a random hand, and a decent opponent will be giving up with a lot of hopeless unmade hands. In other words, I don't think that there's terribly much overlay in the calldown that your check-behind sets up.

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
One thing to notice is that we will just about never fold a better hand with a bet, and that if opponent is trailing, he will have fewer outs than usual because any heart makes your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely right. Note that both of these things suggest that a slowplay might be appropriate.

[ QUOTE ]
However, I think you may be overestimating the value of inducing a bluff in this spot. If you have not improved by the turn, then you are not much of a favorite against a random hand

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that right? That surprises me. Did you run a pokerstove simulation or are you just speculating that this is the case?

Either way, it occurs to me that this analysis is flawed. If we are behind on the flop, then checking is clearly best. You agree that he will never fold a hand that beats us, so when comparing our hand to his range to determine favorites on the turn, we should just look at our hand vs the hands he would have folded on the flop... I think you'll find that we're significant favorites over this range, and that is the one that is effected by our flop check.

Against the hands that already beat us on the flop, we also do well, since it costs us less to see a showdown, and after this flop, most of us are showdown bound.

[ QUOTE ]
...a decent opponent will be giving up with a lot of hopeless unmade hands. In other words, I don't think that there's terribly much overlay in the calldown that your check-behind sets up.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you always bet and then suddenly check, sure, a decent opponent may give up a lot. Still, 1) lots of players are not decent, and bluff way to much, and 2) I recommend this play in the context of an overall strategy involving frequently checking behind with nothing.

If you are known to often check (but not always of course) check behind when you a miss and give up, then a decent opponent may well bluff much more after you check behind a very good flop for your hand like this.


Thanks for the interesting discussion Nate.

-Eric

[Schneids]

Biggest leaks:

When to/not make continuation bets in HU or 3 way pots vs decent opposition.

[Kyle]

[ QUOTE ]
Biggest leaks:

When to/not make continuation bets in HU or 3 way pots vs decent opposition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you care to expand on this?

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
Biggest leaks:

When to/not make continuation bets in HU or 3 way pots vs decent opposition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Schneids,

You got it. I think this is just a different way of phrasing my "mistake #3". Most people solve your problem by simply always betting. That's a mishandling of the initiative. They need to check more across the board, weak, strong, sometimes in between.

This is a huge topic, my one example is just the tip of the iceberg. Thinking about it now, I jumped the gun a bit with my example... you really should start by talking about what weak hands to check behind. Then you move on to talk about how people will tend to adjust to that, and how you should take advantage of those adjustments by checking strong hands or hands like the one in the example...

Anyways, yeah. I agree. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

good luck.
Eric

PS. extra strategy point: the reason to single out these short-handed, HU and 3-way pots is that these are small pot sizes, which involve significant strategy changes from your normal bet-bet-bet, win-at-all-costs big pot game.

[Rev. Good Will]

I am only posting this sentence to add this thread to my favorites

[Victor]

1. whenever i start taking random stabs at pots all i notice is my bankroll dwindling.

2. generally agree with this. opponent dependant tho.

3. online i cant see any reason to check hu. you dont see the opponents often enough. the good ones are 8tabling and not paying atttention anyway.

[TonyDanza]

Eric,

Very good post. I have had trouble recently with when to continuation bet, donk bet, etc. in 2 and 3 way pots. I thought your examples were very good, not because I agree with the play as 100% correct/100% of the time, but because it forced me to think about WHY the play has value in certain situations and what those situations would be.

Thanks for your insight.

TD

[gopnik]

[ QUOTE ]
"MP limps, SB limps, you check. Flop: Q83."

awful example. this flop is likely to touch a lot of hands mp would limp with. wait for K32 flops, etc.

"Donk bet more."

okay enough of you. now youre starting to give away some of my best plays.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mike I. and elindauer, I owe 1BB to each of you.


Party Poker Hold'em <font color="#0000FF">(6 handed)</font> link

Preflop: Hero is BB with 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].
<font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, Button calls, SB completes, Hero checks.

Flop: (3.00 SB) 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, Button folds, SB folds.

Final Pot: 2.00 BB.

[wiggs73]

OP,

Really nice post. I think a lot of this can be applied to no limit as well as fixed limit. Thank you.