Pooh Bah Post. Flop min-bet Theorem

[ActionStan]

I think exploitability (in the sense of making fine adjustments, not exploiting bad play ...edit...)is highly overrated in the small limits. Bad players aren't going to adjust. The better players are playing so many tables that it's very hard to keep track of this sort of textured situation. It doesn't come up all that much. The action has to proceed a particular way, etc, etc. You can't take advantage of a lot of these situations for the same reason stud will never take off on the internet the hold 'em has. You have to pay too much attention to the details and you just can't do that playing 6+ tables.

[A_C_Slater]

I usually just pretend the min bet is a check and play against it the same way. The only time I won't treat it as a check is if I open 7 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]7 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] in and flop comes K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] or something then I will just fold.

[Mike Kelley]

[ QUOTE ]
I didnt like your reply either (nothing personal)

micro NL is all about playing exploitively rather than optimally. The whole point of playing that small is that youre noticing your opponents tendencies and they arent noticing yours. And they make donk moves.


AS FOR OP: I too knew of the minbet phenomenon and what it meant, I think a useful addition to your post would be on how to put minbetters off their hand, or how to handle it when they mindonk the turn again. Something factoring in the fact that it may often be a draw.

The funny thing about raising them with air is that the type of player who will make this weak lead is often willing to try and get to showdown with their trash hand.

I donk know how much good this info does if it doesnt actually win us money. How much profit did you make in those 17 hands?

EDIT: Looks like you won about $30 over 17 hands where you KNEW (except for one case) that your opponent was weak, and you sometimes had a premium holding, and you always had position, and it was always a raised pot. So you see my point, I agree that you know what a mindonkbet means, but maybe we need to investigate what to do with that info.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was the first 17 hands AKs, AKo, and AQs. I have evidence across the entire spectrum of hands that I have played, a whole bunch of aces, all my pocket pairs and probably also times when I called in position and got min bet donked into that the filter didn't pick up. I didn't think that it was important to show all the hands since 17 with 1 mis-step makes a pretty good case. I am confident that if I keep researching the read will be about 95% reliable. I almost always jam the pot again on the turn and I know that I have won hands with just ace high when villains couldn't let go of their j4s. The cool thing is on the river when they miss again you can usually fire the last $2.00 into the pot and they will fold their busted flush draw and you don't have to show them that you you were abusing them with A high.

[Mike Kelley]

[ QUOTE ]
I usually just pretend the min bet is a check and play against it the same way. The only time I won't treat it as a check is if I open 7 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]7 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] in and flop comes K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] or something then I will just fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's better than a check imo, it announces that the opponent is weak, you rarely get reraised from by a flop min-better.

[VegasRunner]

"When most players [flop] a Set with a small Pair (or [flop] Two-Pair with small connecting cards)...they do the obvious. They check...waiting for the raiser to bet. And then they put in a raise."

"That's the wrong way to play it. That way they give the raiser the opportunity to get away from his hand at a minimum loss. But, if you lead into him...and he raises--there's no savings. He's almost committed to get the rest of his money in the pot."

--Super System p.438


I realize that we are talking about micro limits and I'm not condoning anything like a min bet, but when I flop two pair or better and the preflop raiser is behind me, I almost always make a weak lead into him (about 30% of the pot, so it looks like a feeler). When he reraises me with his overpair, he is screwed.

I think you need to consider the source of the small lead because when the villian doesn't know me, I regularly exploit people who play by your theorem.

[CalledDownLight]

[ QUOTE ]
"When most players [flop] a Set with a small Pair (or [flop] Two-Pair with small connecting cards)...they do the obvious. They check...waiting for the raiser to bet. And then they put in a raise."

"That's the wrong way to play it. That way they give the raiser the opportunity to get away from his hand at a minimum loss. But, if you lead into him...and he raises--there's no savings. He's almost committed to get the rest of his money in the pot."

--Super System p.438


I realize that we are talking about micro limits and I'm not condoning anything like a min bet, but when I flop two pair or better and the preflop raiser is behind me, I almost always make a weak lead into him (about 30% of the pot, so it looks like a feeler). When he reraises me with his overpair, he is screwed.

I think you need to consider the source of the small lead because when the villian doesn't know me, I regularly exploit people who play by your theorem.

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize doyle is talking about potting or close to potting it? I'm sure OP isn't autoraising if its potted.

[VegasRunner]

[ QUOTE ]
I almost always make a weak lead into him (about 30% of the pot, so it looks like a feeler).

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that potting it is what Doyle was suggesting, but only because that's pretty much all he suggest in the Super System. He doesn't believe in feeler bets at all.

I personally don't agree with potting it, because I rarely use PSBs, so instead, I'm adapting what he said into my game.

[CalledDownLight]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I almost always make a weak lead into him (about 30% of the pot, so it looks like a feeler).

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that potting it is what Doyle was suggesting, but only because that's pretty much all he suggest in the Super System. He doesn't believe in feeler bets at all.

I personally don't agree with potting it, because I rarely use PSBs, so instead, I'm adapting what he said into my game.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, despite the book being like 40 years old feeler bets are still worthless. You have a pretty big leak if you aren't regularly betting 2/3 to full pot.

[VegasRunner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I almost always make a weak lead into him (about 30% of the pot, so it looks like a feeler).

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that potting it is what Doyle was suggesting, but only because that's pretty much all he suggest in the Super System. He doesn't believe in feeler bets at all.

I personally don't agree with potting it, because I rarely use PSBs, so instead, I'm adapting what he said into my game.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, despite the book being like 40 years old feeler bets are still worthless. You have a pretty big leak if you aren't regularly betting 2/3 to full pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I'm not condoning feeler bets. I'm condoning a bet that looks like a feeler against villians who think I'm capable of one.

2. I certainly think there is a time to bet half the pot. Perhaps I think differently about this because I play live exclusively. In live play, different games call for different tactics. If I can get in a game where I can steal pots with 1/2 pot sized c-bets all night, why would I bet more?

[the_main]

I've always treated minbets as checks