Defining your hand: is it ever a good idea?

[burningyen]

It seems to me that when people talk about defining their hand they really mean defining their opponent's hand.

[Yoshi63]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems to me that when people talk about defining their hand they really mean defining their opponent's hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's a combination. You are making it kind of obvious what you have to your opponent, so that you can figure out what they have and act accordingly.

To betgo's original question, I do think it can sometimes be a good idea. It would clearly need to be against an unsophisticated opponent who won't think any deeper than "looks like he's got an overpair!" I don't personally do this, but before you say it's always a terrible idea, remember that not all opponents are as smart as you and capable of exploiting anything.

[d2themfi]

how is it possible to "define ur hand" if you play atleast a somewhat balanced gameplan?

This thread is confusing

[Yoshi63]

Simply having a "somewhat balanced gameplan" doesn't mean there aren't certain combinations of flops/turns/rivers along with your betting action that you'd only do with a specific type of hand.

[d2themfi]

so are u saying that those flops/turns/rivers u have one specific hand cause that means ur range is not balanced.

if youre saying that certain sequences narrow our hand range soemtimes, thats true, but that still doesnt "define our hand"

I mean I cant think of a single situation that comes up for a competent player besides super rare situations where ur like 1000bbs deep where an opponent can say you have "x" hand, and not "x" range

[d2themfi]

even in the rare instance where say like the board has 3 to a straight flush and ur opponent holds the nut flush, and u shove the river on him for like 1000 times the pot, theoretically u should still have a bluff there some % of the time, albeit a extremely extremely small %

[Cornell Fiji]

D2themfi,

I believe that by having a balanced game plan you are trying to say that you want to play in an unexploitable fashion; is that correct? I posit that we do not want to play unexploitably, we want to play optimally and there is a fundemental difference between the two.


Betgo,

I do not believe that we should intentionally ever define our hand (as was suggested in the other thread) but that there is not necessarily something wrong with playing in a transparent manner against 95% of opponents.

[Weezey Baby]

I don't believe that defining your hand is a good idea. I think that this only works against weak minded opponents who are not going to be able to lay down hands against you even if you showed them your hand during the middle of play. I believe that maybe defining where you believe you are in the hand can be beneficial to you as a player. Not necessarily defining your hand to your opponent but acting accordingly to see where you stand in the hand in your opinion and see where your opponent is as well. Tough thread, good topic, like to see what everyone else thinks. Whats your opinion betgo?