"Donking" into someone

[psuasskicker]

Why do people use this term to refer to a bet? So far I've seen it in multiple threads and it implies a stupid bet when in almost every case I've seen it used it's created confusion in the hand.

I seriously can't stand this term the way I see it used. If someone does something like cold calls a reraise oop on a board of A73 two tone and calls a turn bet and raise and then bets out on the river when whatever draws don't come in, then I can see it being used. That looks to me like a stupid bluff.

But when someone opens from CO, calls a 3-bet, bets and calls a raise on a ragged flop, and then bets the turn, the term "donking into you on the turn" doesn't seem very applicable.

- C -

[Harv72b]

A true "donk bet" occurs when a player check/calls on one street, and then leads after a blank hits on the next one. For example, check/calling a HU flop with a board of A76 rainbow, and then betting into his opponent when a 2 hits on the turn.

The situation you described, where a player bet/calls the flop and then leads the turn, is a stop & go.

Both moves can be effective when used in the right situation--you might donkbet the turn in anticipation of 3-betting an aggressive opponent, where you believe he'd just call down if you check/raised. The stop & go is often used when you have a good but not great hand and believe your opponent might have raised the prior street on a semibluff.

[psuasskicker]

Okay, so understanding now what the more formal definition is, this is a term that's being grossly misused...

Thanks for the clarification.

- C -

[Abbaddabba]

It's for when you're closing action (or close to it) on a previous street, and rather than raising, you call. And then, when a card that seems incredibly unlikely to have helped anyone falls, you bet out.

There are instances where it's applicable. Namely if you think someone is raising for a free card, and you wait to see if obvious draws dont come in, and then bet. In that case, your hand has improved - just not in the conventional sense. It's improved because a good portion of the potential hands that your opponent could have did not.


If it comes J73 rainbow, you bet, he raises in position and the turn comes an offsuit 2 - why would you bet out again? Anyone who raises the flop is going to bet the turn and possibly raise. If you didnt think you were good enough to 3bets on the flop, why would you open action for a stronger hand to make it 2 bets now? And if you did, why would you not check raise? If it DID improve you, then you would almost always want to checkraise since there is almost no chance that the villain will check behind.

[psuasskicker]

why would you bet out again? Anyone who raises the flop is going to bet the turn and possibly raise. ... if you did, why would you not check raise?

I largely agree with this but I will make this move all the time against an aggro opponent who I know will raise me on the turn cause now I can three bet him. I do that successfully all the time. Why's it called donking into someone? I don't care if it looks fishy, it's created a confusing situation, and I think it's dangerous to assume it's something representative of poor play.

- C --

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
why would you bet out again? Anyone who raises the flop is going to bet the turn and possibly raise. ... if you did, why would you not check raise?

I largely agree with this but I will make this move all the time against an aggro opponent who I know will raise me on the turn cause now I can three bet him. I do that successfully all the time. Why's it called donking into someone? I don't care if it looks fishy, it's created a confusing situation, and I think it's dangerous to assume it's something representative of poor play.

- C --

[/ QUOTE ]


It is indeed dangerous to assume that the donk bet in itelf is representative of poor play. But if you see the same person frequently cold calling raises and never folding his SB or open limping in late position and he does all this along with donk betting then you can probably assume he is not good. And when you finally do see him showdown something then it will usually be confirmed.

[JetFuelGenius]

I wouldn't get to worked up about how loosely or incorrectly the phrase gets thrown around. It's just a phrase, and does not really imply that villian is making an incorrect play. I agree with you that it is a very good play in certain circumstances for the reasons you listed.