Protecting Your Hand: Thanks, Ed Miller (medium-low content)

[private joker]

I've seen a lot of posts recently where people have been check/calling weak top pairs on the flop to see what develops. If you need any more proof that check-raising to protect is the right way to play (per SSH), take a look at this hand. Far too many people saw this flop for me to think betting out was going to protect it. In fact, I was pretty sure I was going to have to show down. But here's how it went down...

Preflop: Hero is BB with K/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 8/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
UTG calls, UTG+1 calls, MP1 calls, MP2 calls, MP3 folds, CO calls, Button folds, SB completes, Hero checks.

Flop: (7 SB) 2/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 6/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(7 players)</font>
SB checks, Hero checks, UTG checks, UTG+1 checks, MP1 checks, MP2 checks, <font color="#CC3333">CO bets</font>, SB folds, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, UTG folds, UTG+1 folds, MP1 folds, MP2 calls, CO calls.

Turn: (6.50 BB) J/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, MP2 folds, CO folds.

Final Pot: 7.50 BB

[Harv72b]

I agree with what you're saying, but I'm not sure that this is a great hand to use as an example.

You made top pair against a big field, checked, and after it was checked around CO made a lame attempt to steal the pot. You raised to show K, and most of the field folded, with only one (EDIT--it's late) additional caller. I think it was pretty obvious after the flop that nobody else was holding a K.

Do you still c/r the flop if someone besides CO had bet it?

[private joker]

[ QUOTE ]


You made top pair against a big field, checked, and after it was checked around CO made a lame attempt to steal the pot. You raised to show K, and most of the field folded, with only one (EDIT--it's late) additional caller. I think it was pretty obvious after the flop that nobody else was holding a K.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the point. The point is that even those players not holding a king could have had several draws -- diamonds, gutshots, bottom pair, you name it. Charging them with two bets got three potential hand-killers to fold. My top pair weak kicker wasn't going to improve much, but several draws could improve to get me. This isn't about having the best King; it's about protecting from draws.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you still c/r the flop if someone besides CO had bet it?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends.

[gaming_mouse]

I play it the same. Nice hand.

[coyote]

let me ask, what happens if UTG or UTG+1 bets that on the flop instead of the cutoff? call and evaluate on the turn? fold?

[StellarWind]

You played this well and you won. Nice hand.

But I would not cite the result as a triumph for this line of play. Imagine that you must play a do-over. You get to replay the postflop part of the hand using everything you learned the first time except the turn card will still be random. No one else remembers the first time the hand was played, so their play will be the same unless you do something different.

How would you play it?

It's pretty obvious from the flop and turn play that you have the best hand. In fact, aside from runner-runner possibilities, it is likely that only an ace can beat you. Possibly someone had a small pocket pair. Middle or bottom pair seems pretty unlikely given the board and how quickly they gave up. A gutshot is farfetched.

I'd put the entire field on about 3-5 outs. Rarely more, sometimes zero. For my do-over, I'm more than happy to go bet-bet-bet. Everyone is welcome to chase me down. Catch me if you can. Every call I get is a mistake that makes me money.

Once again I think your line of play was fine. There are many things that could go wrong when you bet out. Checking can keep you out of trouble when you don't have the best hand and very often you won't. Checkraising can also make you extra money by double-charging real draws like A6 or the flush.

But everyone seems to have this terrible fear that betting won't work even when you do have the best hand. That's just not true in an unraised pot. Look at this flop. If you have the best hand you are going to be very difficult to catch. Only a flush draw is serious trouble and there is nothing you can do about that. Even mediocre draws like middle pair are hard to come by and unless the kicker is an ace you have a big redraw. Most of the time no one has odds to pay one bet. Even if one player does have odds to chase you often get other callers who are throwing their money away on duplicated or defective or simply insufficient outs. It's very profitable to accept the increased risk of losing and encourage them to chase you.

[TheHip41]

I understand your need to want to c/r a late position bet, but why wouldn't you bet the flop? You have TP/MK. You will be ahead here way more than you are behind. If you have K3, maybe I'd check and see how the action goes. With K8, I'm betting the flop, I'd hate to give a free card to all those retards limping with trash.

On a side note, when you have Kx in this hand, when do you bet the flop, what does x=have to be?

Would you bet out KQ? KJ? KT? K9? I would, just a thought.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't about having the best King;

[/ QUOTE ]

Many times it's not even about having a K at all.

b

[bernie]

There are 7 bets in the pot. 6 opponents who limped with god knows what. The pot is big enough, it's time to go for a protection raise.

K8 isn't TPMK, it's TPCrapKicker.

b

[MicroBob]

When the pot gets this big it is unnecessary to try to extract more bets from your opponents.
You should do everything you can to win the big pot as quickly as possible.

The C/R has a good chance of getting rid of any ace-outs that might have won if it was only 1 bet.

You might even get a better hand than yours like K9 or KT to give up.

[colgin]

Stellar Wind,

I read the original post but it was late so I planned to respond in the morning. Lo and behold you already wrote what I had intended to say but, of course, in a more detailed, precise and articulate manner than I could have done. I don't object to Private Joker's line here. It was well thought out and executed. Like you I think that betting out on the flop is likely a better line here. We can all quibble over what constitutes a large pot but I think 7SBs is on the border. In any event, I don't thinki it is so enormous that one must try to do everything to win it even if that means knocking out players that are drawing very thin against your hand.

Private Joker mentioned knocking out gutshots and lower pocket pairs. Well, on this board there is an unlikely gutshot and pocket pairs are not getting odds to chase regardless. Like you, I want those hands to try to run me down. Sometimes they will, but in the longrun I am making money on their attempts. Here, the hands we would liek to fold, a flush draw or a better King, ae not going to do so. Other probable hands that might incorrectly call for one bet on the flop (and then might even feel pot committed or make an expensive second best hand on the turn) may fold the flop when confronted with two bets cold. Yes, there are some pots that get so large that you would be happy to see everyone fold rather than worrying about extracting extra bets. I don't think that this is one of them. Here, given the action and the board, I think you are correct that Hero likely has the best hand with most of the opponents drawing thin. In that case, while check-raising is not bad, I think betting the flop is preferable.

[private joker]

I see what you and Stellar are saying, Colgin, but I still think check-raising protects my hand better. There are plenty of hands I'd like to fold here. A2, A6, diamonds, other kings, etc. If I bet out this flop, not only am I likely to get more callers, but the late position player could raise. Then where am I? Is he raising on a draw? Does he have a better king? I think a c/r is a more powerful tool that can even get the bettor to slow down if he has a superior hand (like KJ). Also, I could see lots of callers and no raisers, and not know who has a king and who doesn't.

It helps that I did have the best hand and most likely the only king, but the c/r folded three hands that could have caught a number of turn cards I didn't want to see. As I said, K8 is unlikely to improve on this board and I'd like to take down the pot as soon as possible. Furthermore, if I was really way ahead of the pack (so ahead that they were long shots to beat my hand), then I wouldn't get much more action down the line. I agree with Bernie and MicroBob on this one.

[Womble]

You do not want to bet this flop because all the flush draws are correct to stay in and they probably will do so. Your only other option is a checkraise which

1) If it succeeds with a LP better than alot of the field will fold so your chances of winning increase
2) If it gets checked around you get to see the turn for free. If a safe card comes, you are good to bet but if a scare card comes liek a /images/graemlins/diamond.gif you may have saved a bet from the poor flush draws on the flop that would have called the bet.
3) If can early player after you bets then you can raise for value to see where you stand. If it is 3bet you can safely check/fold the turn of you do not improve.

[StellarWind]

I want to emphasize that I do not object to checking the flop. In fact I probably would have done so myself. My point was that if I had been magically aware of how far ahead I was I would have bet. Checking usually works better when you don't have the best hand or there are strong draws that can be charged multiple bets.

[ QUOTE ]
You do not want to bet this flop because all the flush draws are correct to stay in and they probably will do so.

[/ QUOTE ]
Flush draws will stay in no matter how many bets you charge them. But if you have the best hand you want to charge them as much as possible. Either betting or checking might accomplish that depending on how it goes.

[ QUOTE ]
2) If it gets checked around you get to see the turn for free.

[/ QUOTE ]
The word that comes to mind for a check-through on the flop is "disaster". You've just given a whole field of worse hands a free card. Both your winning chances and your profit are seriously hurt. This possibility is a reason to bet the flop.

[ QUOTE ]
3) If can early player after you bets then you can raise for value to see where you stand. If it is 3bet you can safely check/fold the turn of you do not improve.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is pretty unrealistic. You may meet your opposite number who 3-bets to see where he stands. Or you may simply get 3-bet by a flush draw. Regardless of how you play the hand, meeting a better king or set will probably be expensive without any reads. Unless you are willing to run a big risk of folding the best hand.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact I probably would have done so myself. My point was that if I had been magically aware of how far ahead I was I would have bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no potion that will ever let you see that. So that way of thinking is relegated to...hindsight. The play is going for the c/r. The pot is big enough.

[ QUOTE ]
The word that comes to mind for a check-through on the flop is "disaster".

[/ QUOTE ]

To me, it's called, 'it happens'. So what. It's not the end of the world. When it does, you pretty much bet the turn no matter what card comes off. Hell, sometimes you can bet it in the dark.

[ QUOTE ]
Both your winning chances and your profit are seriously hurt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necesarily. To use your 'magical awareness' your profit may actually go up if they catch something that they won't have the odds to call a turn bet with, but will call anyways that they'd have folded 'correctly' on the flop.

The only card i'm really hating on the turn is the A.

b

[Harv72b]

[ QUOTE ]
That's not the point. The point is that even those players not holding a king could have had several draws -- diamonds, gutshots, bottom pair, you name it. Charging them with two bets got three potential hand-killers to fold. My top pair weak kicker wasn't going to improve much, but several draws could improve to get me. This isn't about having the best King; it's about protecting from draws.

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that this was a perfect-case scenario where everything went absolutely ideally for you. In a pot with this many callers, that's not likely to happen very often.

Suppose, for example, that you checked out and UTG then bet. He could be betting the flush draw, or he could have limped with KQ or even KJs...regardless, if you had bet out, he almost certainly would have raised, accomplishing exactly what you wanted by forcing the rest of the field to call 2 or fold. Or suppose that instead of CO betting it had been MP1, right dead in the middle of the order. Half the field now gets to call for 1 before you can raise, and with the added bets in the pot from all those calls plus the expected overcalls to your raise, the EP players have better pot odds to call 2 with their draws/A high hands.

I think the c/r play is better suited to a smaller field, or one where a LP player raised preflop (of course, you wouldn't be in the hand with K8o if that had happened). Against a large field like this there are a ton of things that can go wrong &amp; screw your plans up, from a check-through to an early bet to a bet &amp; a raise....you get the idea.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the c/r play is better suited to a smaller field,

[/ QUOTE ]

The bigger the field, the more likely you'd like to go for a c/r. The smaller the field/pot, the more you'd like to bet out.

[ QUOTE ]
Or suppose that instead of CO betting it had been MP1, right dead in the middle of the order. Half the field now gets to call for 1 before you can raise,

[/ QUOTE ]

Who says you have to raise here?

b

[Redeye]

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine that you must play a do-over. You get to replay the postflop part of the hand using everything you learned the first time except the turn card will still be random. No one else remembers the first time the hand was played, so their play will be the same unless you do something different.

How would you play it?



[/ QUOTE ]

I find this to be very interesting and its something I have been trying to work on for awhile. There have been times where I have taken an action (raise,c/r, bet) where I think all I have done is made a hopeless hand fold against me. I don't have any great examples of this at the moment, but this hand seems to illustrate that a little bit.

Sometimes we are trying so hard to protect our hands that we aren't considering when we are way ahead and want people calling along, or situations where a player may be way ahead of us and protecting our hand from others is pointless. I'm trying to learn to read hands better and try to trust these reads in an effort to not go crazy w/ bets/raises/c/r's in places where I might lose callers with little or no hope of improving.

However, I was wondering, while betting out on the flop in this hand might be a better strategy, would you still advocate that line if the other cards on the flop were a little higher in value? (Making 2nd/3rd pair 5outers more likely, making gutshots more likely, etc.)

[Derek in NYC]

I'm with Joker on this one. The reason is the size of the field.

1. The King and two-tone flop suggests there will be a bet after my check. Any number of limping hands contain a king. It would also be correct for the nut flush draw to bet for value. The chances of a free card are minimal.

2. If you agree that many limping hands might dominate your king, it becomes clear that you can't bet the flop for value.

3. More subtly, leading into the large field does nothing to change your positional disadvantage. Even if Stellar Wind is correct and you are ahead (and being chased down incorrectly), you will be at a positional disadvantage on 4th street if there are even as few as 3 callers. Short of the miracle non-diamond 8, there is really no card that you can bet out with confidence. (Even a king would feel like you might be dominated). So assuming you bet the flop and are called by 3 or more players, 4th street is very tough to play. You can't bet with confidence, but if you check, you are either in a weak-passive mode for the rest of the hand, or you could get bluffed off the hand.

4. Checking allows you to observe the flop action. If there is a bet and a raise, you throw away your king-rag out of fear of domination. If there is a positional bet at the end, you play it like Joker did. If there are a number of callers in the pot when it comes back to you, you make a pot-odds based call, and play it squirrely on 4th street.

5. Finally, if you can't clearly bet for value, is there another reason to bet, such as being able to win the pot immediately? Unfortunately, facing a 7 person field, the answer is no. If this were a smaller field (3-4 callers), I think betting would be right. But not facing a field this size.

[private joker]

[ QUOTE ]


4. Checking allows you to observe the flop action. If there is a bet and a raise, you throw away your king-rag out of fear of domination. If there is a positional bet at the end, you play it like Joker did. If there are a number of callers in the pot when it comes back to you, you make a pot-odds based call, and play it squirrely on 4th street.

5. Finally, if you can't clearly bet for value, is there another reason to bet, such as being able to win the pot immediately? Unfortunately, facing a 7 person field, the answer is no. If this were a smaller field (3-4 callers), I think betting would be right. But not facing a field this size.

[/ QUOTE ]

These are the two most salient points, and Derek explained it better than I did. It's important to note that this is a huge field of limpers preflop, so your chances of being up against a live draw on this board are bigger. If the field were only 3 players for a raise PF, giving us the same 7SB pot on the flop, then we could better evaluate what people might have (in this case, the small blind could have something like 43s, giving him a gutshot, whereas if it were raised PF and the field were smaller, I wouldn't be concerned about it). But with 7 limpers, the c/r for protection really seems like the most +EV play in the long run.

Aside: Looks like I shouldn't have called this medium-low content. Turns out to be a pretty interesting thread.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose, for example, that you checked out and UTG then bet. He could be betting the flush draw, or he could have limped with KQ or even KJs...regardless, if you had bet out, he almost certainly would have raised, accomplishing exactly what you wanted by forcing the rest of the field to call 2 or fold.

[/ QUOTE ]
If EP has a better king, the last thing you want is to bet out and get raised. You pay 2 bets and are left calling down with three outs and no one padding the pot in case you hit your eight.

One of the advantages of checking is it reduces the damage if an early player has you beat.

[private joker]

[ QUOTE ]


One of the advantages of checking is it reduces the damage if an early player has you beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait a second, I thought you were advocating betting the flop.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
while betting out on the flop in this hand might be a better strategy, would you still advocate that line

[/ QUOTE ]
Once again I never advocated betting the flop.

Higher undercards on the flop would seriously damage your pot equity by increasing the risk of drawing middle/bottom pairs. You may also lose half the pot when your kicker doesn't play at the end and you chop with a worse king. These problems caused by higher board spots would strengthen the case for checking the flop.

My major issue with this thread is that posters on both sides don't know what they should be wishing for:

1. 'Checkraising is a good line if you have the best hand and no one else has a decent draw' - No it isn't. You are costing yourself money by making everyone fold when you are way ahead. It's better to bet and make it easy for them to chase.

2. 'An advantage of checking is you might see the turn for free' - No that would be terrible. Not only might someone get really lucky and beat you, but some of them probably would have paid you for the turn card.

3. 'It would be good to bet out and get raised by a better king because it would confront everyone with two bets' - That would be an awful development. There is no point in protecting a hand that won't win. Weak draws need to minimize expenses and get as many other callers as they can.

It's impossible to have an intelligent discussion of bet vs. check when people are mistakenly making arguments that actually favor the other side.

[private joker]

[ QUOTE ]


My major issue with this thread is that posters on both sides don't know what they should be wishing for:

1. 'Checkraising is a good line if you have the best hand and no one else has a decent draw' - No it isn't. You are costing yourself money by making everyone fold when you are way ahead. It's better to bet and make it easy for them to chase.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that (2) and (3) in your post indicate poor reasoning. But you're misrepresenting (1). My version of (1) is "Checkraising is a good line if you have the best hand but it is vulnerable. When many potential holdings will call one bet on this flop getting around 10:1, facing the field with 2 bets cold forces them to either fold or make an unprofitable call to beat you."

I didn't think I was way ahead in this hand. I wasn't even sure I was ahead at all until the flop action. When the flop got checked through to a LP player who bet, then I realized I was probably ahead but vulnerable and wanted to take the pot down on the turn rather than play defense for 2 more streets.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
Wait a second, I thought you were advocating betting the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, what I said was:

[ QUOTE ]
You played this well and you won. Nice hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
You did play the hand well. Checking and adjusting to the subsequent play is a good idea in this situation.

[ QUOTE ]
But I would not cite the result as a triumph for this line of play.

[/ QUOTE ]
Checking works better against some layouts of the opposing hands. Betting works better against other layouts. The best play is the one that makes the most money in the long run. That is probably checking.

But having seen the entire deal it appears that your opponents had very little. This is one of the layouts where betting has higher EV. You presented the *outcome* of the deal as an example of why checkraising is good, but it is probably just the opposite.

That's important because it is fundamental to know the correct play when you can see everyone else's hand. You can't have a meaningful discussion of checking versus betting when you don't know what the opponents have if you can't even do the right thing when you do know.

Almost all layouts where your top pair is far ahead favor betting. It's only when you consider layouts where you are losing or facing many hostile outs where the advantages of checking become apparent.

I think most of us would bet the flop without hesitation if we had KQ. We'd recognize that we had a really good hand and push it without hesitation despite the risks. The reason we might not bet K8 is we could easily be outkicked. But when we happen not to be outkicked they are essentially the same hand and betting should work out well.

[private joker]

[ QUOTE ]


I think most of us would bet the flop without hesitation if we had KQ. We'd recognize that we had a really good hand and push it without hesitation despite the risks. The reason we might not bet K8 is we could easily be outkicked. But when we happen not to be outkicked they are essentially the same hand and betting should work out well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh, okay now I see where you're coming from. So you're saying you'd check and adjust as I did, but in hindsight you'd bet the flop because K8 is essentially the same as KQ when no one else has a king.

Does having such a large field make you want to check more often than bet if you don't know what everyone has (meaning, if you were to play this hand without knowing the outcome)? If so, I'm assuming you just call an EP bet followed by more field calls because you're getting odds if you're behind, fold to a bet and a raise back to you, and raise a LP bet like I did?

EDIT: The reason I had mistakenly thought you advocated betting the flop regardless is because of Colgin's post where he said he agreed with you that betting the flop is preferable. By the end of the thread I had equated your positions.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
My version of (1) is "Checkraising is a good line if you have the best hand but it is vulnerable.

[/ QUOTE ]
You are very exposed to the possibility of not having the best hand on the flop.

But if you do have the best hand you are not very vulnerable. If an ace comes you will probably lose. Aside from that you are in great shape. The other possible draws are weak and they probably don't have them anyway. That's what having 62 for undercards does for you.

The exception to this is a flush draw. There isn't much you can do about that, but forcing out the other chasing hands to get heads up with the flush draw usually hurts you both.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
The exception to this is a flush draw. There isn't much you can do about that, but forcing out the other chasing hands to get heads up with the flush draw usually hurts you both.

[/ QUOTE ]

The flush draw really isn't liking you making all its 'customers' pay 2 bets cold to come along with him. Essentially, folding out his action. It really doesn't like that raise too much.

b

[private joker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The exception to this is a flush draw. There isn't much you can do about that, but forcing out the other chasing hands to get heads up with the flush draw usually hurts you both.

[/ QUOTE ]

The flush draw really isn't liking you making all its 'customers' pay 2 bets cold to come along with him. Essentially, folding out his action. It really doesn't like that raise too much.

b

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I think that's why he said it hurts you both.

[MicroBob]

I really don't have much to add here except that this discussion has been a good one and I really enjoyed joker's use of the word 'salient'.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: The reason I had mistakenly thought you advocated betting the flop regardless is because of Colgin's post where he said he agreed with you that betting the flop is preferable. By the end of the thread I had equated your positions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am just catching up to this thread since my prior post and I apologize for misrepresenting Stellar Wind's position if I did that. I understand that Stellar Wind was not saying that checking was bad but that betting was preferable under certain circumstances. I feel the same but where I may differ with SW was that, given that we don't know all the hands that are out of course, my best judgement based on what we do know, was to bet out. I also do not think checking is bad here and I think that you, Private Joker, played the hand well.

My choice to slightly prefer betting is based on the following factord, some of which have been mentioned and some of which are certainly debatable:

1. While the pot may be "large", it is not enormous;
2. When you are ahead you are probably benefitted by hands trailing you (which, with the exception of the flush draw that you can't do anything about anyway, are probably drawing thin) trying to call you down;
3. The other Board cards are low making it less likely that someone has a gutshot or has even flopped middle or bottom pair, and therefore, is drawing to a five-outer;
4. There is only one overcard possible, an Ace, to your top pair; HPFAP has an aexample very similar to this where it advocates a check-raise: unraised but multiway pot and you flop a top pair of Jacks with a Queen kicker (the other board cards are 7 and 2 I believe); in that example you would like overcards like Ax and Kx to fold and hands like 87s have a 5-outer; here, IMO, the board (excepting the flush drasw which you can't do much about) is more favorable to Hero;
5. The fact that your kicker is more likely to play if you do have the best King;
6. A very borderline judgment that in an unraised pot your K8 is more likely than not to be the better King if another King is out there (and I do recognize that people will limp with hands like KQ, KJ and KT); and
7. If it turns out you are behind and drawing to a three-outer against a better King (with possibly some additional outs to a chop) then it will be better to have the players behind you both adding to the pot on your draw.

Again, I think the check-raise was fine but my decision at the margins would have been to bet out. However, this would have been affected by reads about the players that I don't think have been discussed in this thread. If the various limpers in the hand are good enough that they will not incorrectly call for one bet when they are not getting the right odds then I like check-rasing a lot more. Since I am assuming that many of the non-flush draw hands out there are probably not getting proper odds to call just one bet if those hands will then fold for one bet anyway (e.g., a medium pocket pair), then you are left with the callers (or raisers) being either the hands that beat you or are drawing very live against you. In that case you would be better off going for the check-raise and trying to knock out the moe dangerous hands. But if those hands will incorrectly cal one flop bet (which profits you when you are ahead) but will fold if they have to call two cold then I think the benefit of gaining thos extra bets may offset the potential loss of not going for the check-raise. If they will fold anyway for one bet then that doesn't matter.

In any event, I hope I did not suggest that the hand was not well played and thought out. I did think it was well played but that there a number of factors to think about here that are worth discussing.

All the best.

Colgin

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
Does having such a large field make you want to check more often than bet

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. With a 4-player field I would blast away and never give it a second thought. The chance someone has a better hand is smaller. The pot is also smaller and that makes it a much bigger mistake to call one to chase.

[MicroBob]

Not to mention the fact that with a smaller field it is more likely to get checked all the way around.

Small field for 1 bet each....bet away.
Bigger field and you think SOMEONE will bet....C/R.

I'm pretty simplistic though.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to mention the fact that with a smaller field it is more likely to get checked all the way around.

[/ QUOTE ]
This depends on who you are playing. Many buttons can be depended on to bet this flop if the field is small and therefore bluffable.

Also remember that you are actually interested in someone betting a *worse* hand. The difference between a big field and a small field narrows if you ignore the times someone bets because he is way ahead of you.

[Derek in NYC]

If Stellar and Joker agree that betting is bad and checking is good, the real question is what about the checkraise? Here is where I think Stellar and Joker differ.

Joker says, checkraise here to protect your hand and take down this medium sized pot.

Stellar says, if you've put the LP bettor on a positional bet only, the flop action shows you're ahead so why fold out the chasers who are getting lousy odds?

Like Joker, I go with the checkraise here for 3 reasons.

First, I want to checkraise to see where I stand against the LP bettor (who might well still dominate my king). The checkraise lets me take the positional initiative by leading 4th street (and check-calling 5th street if he calls 4th street).

Second, in a field this size, there is bound to be a flush draw (perhaps a small or middle suited connector who did not want to bet for value). If your top pair is good, you're a big favorite over a flush draw, who is going to call you down regardless. So why not charge him twice as much? The checkraise here is in part for value against any flushdraws who were planning to check-call.

Third, there is some need to protect the hand, even if you are ahead. Isn't this inconsistent with Stellar's excellent point that you should *want* chasers who are way behind to call? Yes and no.

It is true that from the flop onwards, every dollar that goes into the pot from a hopeless chaser comes with an overlay. This is good.

It is also true, however, that the chasers reduce your equity on the money already in the pot (i.e., the 8 SBs or whatever that went in preflop). This is bad.

So while chasers give you a positive EV on the new money in, you lose EV on the money already in. Whether you checkraise should depend on whether you think there is a greater overlay in taking down the existing pot, or in keeping the dead money in on later streets.

Here, because the pot is medium sized, you should just take down the pot. Admittedly, it is a somewhat close call from an EV point of view, but I ultimately play it the same as Joker because I just dont like playing 4th street defense with my position so ambiguously defined.

Suppose, a scare card (any /images/graemlins/diamond.gif, an ace, possibly a paired 6) falls on 4th street, and you have only check-called the flop. There were another 1-2 overcallers in addition to the LP bettor. How do you play it?

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
Stellar says, if you've put the LP bettor on a positional bet only, the flop action shows you're ahead so why fold out the chasers who are getting lousy odds?

[/ QUOTE ]
Stellar says if you don't raise the button you're an idiot. Was that clear enough /images/graemlins/blush.gif?

[ QUOTE ]
Second, in a field this size, there is bound to be a flush draw

[/ QUOTE ]
This is completely untrue. A flush draw is substantially against the odds when you see the flop. Now five straight checks have really cut down the chance of a flush draw.