the old paradox

[hazeelnut]

We all know that on the river you shouldnt bet a hand that is likely the best hand but if called it is likely the worst hand. My question is this: how does this concept apply to earlier streets?

Take this hand for example, 3/6 NL, i'm in the big blind with 64o. 2 limpers and the flop comes JJ6 rainbow. Now it's likely that i have the best hand, and it's also a very vulnerable hand so i don't want to give any free cards. But clearly, very few hands worse than this will call my bet on the flop. Should you be more or less inclined to bet with this hand than no hand at all since this hand has some value that gets thrown away with a bet? Whats the play for this hand and similar ones?

Hazeelnut

[crockpot]

i would say your bet here is essentially a bluff, since you cannot expect to get called unless you are drawing very close to dead. i really wouldn't be more inclined to bet this hand than i would 32o in the same situation.

[tewall]

I misread the post the first time. I thought the flop was J66. That's a more interesting question. With JJ6 you just hope to show it down.

To answer your more general question, the principle of not betting if you're only likely to get called by a better hand applies to a much less degree because there is another principle involved which usually overrides it which is not to give free cards away. There are times when it does apply (there are no draws which will hurt you, or if there are, it's very unlikly your opponent has that hand), and in these case checking is often the correct play.

[Wardfish]

Check & fold to a bet.

Consider betting if another low card comes, eg. giving a board of JJ63 rainbow, and then check & fold to a bet !

In general, I would say you should avoid betting where you will win a small pot or lose a bigger one. This is one of those situations.