a balancing question - leading into the pfr

[bugstud]

so we lead with sets, nut flush draws/combo draws. What else do you lead here to balance it?

[LethalRose]

depends on the PFR. some PFR's hate it when you take impetus. Against a PFR I know will fold the flop 80%+ of the time they miss I'll lead into them with anything.

if i know they are going to be aggressive, im leading the flop hoping to get it all in.

[bugstud]

bump?

[ansky451]

Its really not something you can determine in a vacuum. stack sizes, reads, stage in the tournament, and the relative strength of your hand are all needed information to determine when to lead, when to check raise.

[Exitonly]

yep i'm with ansky.. it's not a universal thing.. but i'd add two pair to your list.. so it's basically all hands that i wouldn't regret if i went broke with. If they come over the top i'll be fine calling them.

[2005]

I nearly always lead with hands like bottom 2 or top and bottom

[Jason Strasser]

Well.

Air is a place to start. I can lead with absolutely nothing and I adjust how much I do that so that I get a leading frequency that feels right for me.

Draws/big hands are great too. I tend to not lead a hand like top pair versus most, unless I probably intend to continue if I get raised.

-Jason

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
Well.

Air is a place to start. I can lead with absolutely nothing and I adjust how much I do that so that I get a leading frequency that feels right for me.

Draws/big hands are great too. I tend to not lead a hand like top pair versus most, unless I probably intend to continue if I get raised.

-Jason

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, these are a little more what I was looking for.

well essentially I was always leading, if I chose to lead, with those things. So my only line was lead/3bet if correct or call and whatnot. I kinda was wondering just how often you lead with hands that don't want action versus the big hands where all the money wants to get in. As much as I hate to say it this is mostly in prep for aruba because I imagine some of them will be paying attention to the hands and whatnot. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Maybe I'll try a heavy-leading MTT and see what happens?

[J_V]

The best place to start is by leading all the time to get a feel for how often you should be doing it with.

It's hard to actually put this into practice, since situations are unique, but lead with dust for a while and if you start winning pots, increase it. If you never steal a pot, you know what to do /images/graemlins/smile.gif.


I want to note, that I have toyed with the idea of being a "flop leader" in all types of games, limits, and scenarios and found it very difficult to do. Ideally, it is your cheapest bluff and probably your most effective weapon - however, I've only seen one Heads up limit holdem player, that was an expert and someone that rarely c/r the flop.

[J_V]

Yeah? why those hand and not top two?

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah? why those hand and not top two?

[/ QUOTE ]

probably just on counterfeit problems alone.

[MLG]

[ QUOTE ]
I want to note, that I have toyed with the idea of being a "flop leader" in all types of games, limits, and scenarios and found it very difficult to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

I lead a lot. I think out of all poker arenas the MTT is the easiest to be a successful leadaholic. Since often stacks are short, and even when they aren't short, they are shortish (35-60BBs) leading really takes the maneuvering room away from your opponents.

The only thing I'll say is that I very rarely lead with a hand that I'm unsure of. I either am committing to it, (sometimes this means check calling if I get raised, sometimes it means push 3 betting the flop) or I am folding to a raise. That means that I tend not to lead medium strength hands into aggresive opponens, or run total air into guys who will raise the flop without a hand.

[SoBeDude]

[ QUOTE ]
I tend to not lead a hand like top pair versus most, unless I probably intend to continue if I get raised.

-Jason

[/ QUOTE ]

Betting out can garner far more information than checking, which should be obvious.

And of course the type of opponent matters, but I like leading with top pair when its a marginal card, such as a T-Q.

If its HU, how he reacts here can tell you where you're at in the hand. This is especially true for very straightforward players (and there still are a lot of those out there).

If its multi-way and the PFR is in LP, often your bet out scares those trapped in the middle, afraid of calling only to be raised by the PFR, so it tends to push them out. And of course you can still judge where you're at based on how the PFR reacts to your bet.

Additionally, in a multi-way hand, checking marginal top pair with the intention of calling a reasonable bet is very dangerous, as the other players in the hand can trap YOU, so the bet out allows greater action ahead of you to help define your hand.

-Scott

[2005]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah? why those hand and not top two?

[/ QUOTE ]

probably just on counterfeit problems alone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it's just such a vulnerable holding.