I want your stack

[BradleyT]

Let's say you have a nut flush or nut straight on the river. Let's assume you made your hand on the turn and were leading out the entire time (with pot sized bets). What thoughts do you use when betting? I never know when to put someone all in or just try to sucker them with a timid "I've got the nuts, please don't fold" bet.

Do you look at betting a certain % of their stack? I.E. figure they'll be likely to call 25% of their stack 75% of the time but would only call 100% 10% of the time (2nd nut flush, lower end of straight, etc..). Do you also factor in the size of the current pot? I.E. if it's only 10% of their total stack, they'd be crazy to call an all in without the pure nuts.

Any general advice?

[SpaceAce]

This is one of the most player-dependent questions I can imagine. Each person has different standards for putting money into the pot and each opponent will interpret your actions differently. Is your opponent the aggressive type? Will he raise if you make a weak bet on the turn? Is he the suspicious type who assumes all weak bets are come-ons? Will he draw to his flush if you give him odds that are bad but not terrible? Wil he put his whole stack in with a flush on a paired board?

In general, if I come out betting on the flop and turn a monster, I keep right on betting as if nothing has changed. Either your opponent has something he can call with or he doesn't.

SpaceAce

[CrisBrown]

Hi Bradley,

[ QUOTE ]
Let's say you have a nut flush or nut straight on the river. Let's assume you made your hand on the turn and were leading out the entire time (with pot sized bets). What thoughts do you use when betting?

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent question. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

This is player-dependent, so I'm thinking back over how he's played over the last half-hour or hour, as well as any long-term impressions I have. I'm trying to classify him, and I think in terms of Phil Hellmuth's animal types:

* Mouse (tight-passive, rock): This player won't put any more money in the pot unless he thinks he has the best hand, and if he does think he has the best hand, he'll call whatever I bet. But he probably won't bet out unless he has the nuts, and I know he doesn't, so there's no point in trying to trap him. I'm going to set him all-in. He'll probably fold, but if he does he'd have folded regardless of what I'd bet. And if he does think he has the best hand, I'll get the maximum payoff.

* Elephant (loose-passive, calling station): Again, this is a passive player, so there's not a lot of point in trapping him as he's not going to bet my hand for me. However, he's likely to call a moderate bet, even if he wouldn't call an all-in bet. So I'm going to be measuring his stack, and the pot, and how often he's seen me bet a weaker hand than I'd represented (I'll give him credit for paying attention) and try to give him "almost good" odds to call if he thinks I might be bluffing. E.g.: If I think he has seen me overbet or bluff about 20% of the time, I would bet 1/2 the pot, so he's getting 3:1 on his call.

* Jackal (loose-aggressive, maniac): Ahh, this guy is fun. He's been calling my pot-sized bets, so I think he has something. And if he has anything, he's going to bet it. I'll check, and when he bets, I'm going to raise about 3x his bet. If he wants to fire back all-in, that's fine with me. If he wants to call, I've probably milked him for as much as I was going to get.

* Lion (tight-aggressive, stone killer): This is going to be the toughest player to get paid off from. I'm going to play him a lot like the Elephant, except he's a lot less likely to make an FTOP mistake, so I'm going to give him accurate odds to call if he thinks I'm bluffing. E.g.: if I think he's seen me overbet or bluff 20% of the time, I would bet 1/3rd of the pot. If he estimates my bluff percentage accurately, he will be correct to call me, and that's what I want.

One important side benefit of this approach is that it gives me some deception in my play. Note that my responses range from all-in to 1/2-pot to check-raise to 1/3-pot, and unless my opponents know why I'm doing it -- that is, they know I play this as read-dependent, and they have the same reads I do -- what they'll see is seemingly random plays in similar situations. So they won't know what to make of any given bet that I make, and that's what I want.

Cris

[BradleyT]

Thanks Cris.

Excellent guidelines and exactly the type of thought process I was looking for to consider what to bet.