Roy Hobbs
04-21-2003, 02:02 PM
(Caveat: I am remembering this article from memory -- Mason, please correct if I have misunderstood your argument)
In Mason's most recent CardPlayer article advocates checking strong hands in early position twice where a) you are against an agressive opponent who will be unable to resist betting worse hands when checked to; and b) where it is unlikely that opponents who are currently behind will be able to catch up, with the side benefit that you save bets where you are already beaten (the example used is a holding of KQ with a K44 board against a preflop raiser).
The main benefit of checking twice is, of course, to collect more bets from players who may fold if you bet the flop or bet the turn after it is checked around. As an example of the perils of playing "made" hands too strongly, he cites a player who bets a flopped top two from early position and then complains when everyone folds.
I think that for the most part, this advice is excellent, but I am interested in what the forum (and Mason) thinks about the argument for betting strong hands on the flop where you think that your bets will induce rather than drive away action.
In an aggressive games (and even in some loose-passive games), a bet from early position in an unraised pot is, at least in my experience, at least equally likely to induce calls because the betting player is likely to be making a semi-bluff or pure bluff at the pot because of the lack of strength shown before the flop. Against these players, who appear to be willing to see the turn no matter what, but might also be willing to take a free card if checked to, it seems that a bet is mandatory. This not only gets more money in the pot, but allows you to check on the turn if a scare card hits and hope to induce a bet from a worse hand. You also may induce players to make their own bluff/semi-bluff at the pot.
Interested in your feedback.
RH
In Mason's most recent CardPlayer article advocates checking strong hands in early position twice where a) you are against an agressive opponent who will be unable to resist betting worse hands when checked to; and b) where it is unlikely that opponents who are currently behind will be able to catch up, with the side benefit that you save bets where you are already beaten (the example used is a holding of KQ with a K44 board against a preflop raiser).
The main benefit of checking twice is, of course, to collect more bets from players who may fold if you bet the flop or bet the turn after it is checked around. As an example of the perils of playing "made" hands too strongly, he cites a player who bets a flopped top two from early position and then complains when everyone folds.
I think that for the most part, this advice is excellent, but I am interested in what the forum (and Mason) thinks about the argument for betting strong hands on the flop where you think that your bets will induce rather than drive away action.
In an aggressive games (and even in some loose-passive games), a bet from early position in an unraised pot is, at least in my experience, at least equally likely to induce calls because the betting player is likely to be making a semi-bluff or pure bluff at the pot because of the lack of strength shown before the flop. Against these players, who appear to be willing to see the turn no matter what, but might also be willing to take a free card if checked to, it seems that a bet is mandatory. This not only gets more money in the pot, but allows you to check on the turn if a scare card hits and hope to induce a bet from a worse hand. You also may induce players to make their own bluff/semi-bluff at the pot.
Interested in your feedback.
RH