Strategy versus loose-aggressives

I found Mason's hand above very interesting. To recap, he raised first in on the button with Q-J and the big blind was extremely loose-aggressive. He bet on the J-7-3 rainbow flop, checked the turn 5, and called a rag on the river to beat the BB's A-9 bluff. So he kind of slowplayed the turn.


I'm curious to examine what the strategic differences are between Malmuth's slowplay on the turn and a slowplay on the flop. I believe in Ciaffone's Improve your Poker he advocates checking top pair on the flop against loose-aggressive opponents when heads up (I could be wrong here but its a valid strategy anyway). Then you can raise the turn or just call down. What if Mason had checked the flop rather than the turn?


One difference is that the pot would certainly get bigger using Ciaffone's method and you really punish the loose-aggressive player. But also, notice what happens with Ciaffone's method when you miss if you always check the flop. Then on the turn your opponent won't know what to do and he'll likely check the turn, thinking you may be slowplaying. Now you can check behind him again. By the river, the whole situation has been diffused as the hand is pretty much over and there's a nothing pot not really worth going after. He'll believe there's a good chance you'll call down with A-high at that point so may be unlikely to bluff or, hopefully, you can check all the way down. Well, one difference is your opponent can pretty much value bet anything at this point and another point is he got two free cards. But this may not be that bad considering you have no pair either on the turn and have given yourself a free card as your opponent may be scared to bet middle or bottom pair after a slowplay. Any thoughts.

It is conventional wisdom to bet on the flop when you raised preflop and bet it heads up, and there is a reason for that. If your opponent will fold 20% of the time you should pretty much always bet. By taking/giving free cards with nothing, your chances of winning the pot are not good, while a bet on the flop is profitable. If you bet when you have nothing, you need to bet when you have something too, or else it won't work. The bet on the flop also gives you cheaper information than on the turn. The reason Mason knew the guy was drawing thin was because he only called the flop bet. Without a very good hand it becomes tough to play the turn, especially if an overcard hits. The play Ciaffone describes should only be done occasionally, IMO, just to throw off your opponent. It should also usually be done with a very good hand that is tough to beat (top-pair ace, etc...). Good poker is a game of betting and inducing bets, not trying to check it down. Fear is not a factor with L/A players. They will bet their middle pair on the turn. In summary, the few extra bets you make by checking the flop when you have it are far outweighed by the drawouts you will see, the money you will lose when you have nothing and would have won with a bet, and the difficulty you will have playing because it is hard to tell where you stand with good but not great hands.


-g-

I know i've read about this somewhere from B.C., but can't seem

to find it.


Are you sure he was referring to a heads-up pot after you

raised BB preflop scenario?


It seems to me like he was talking about a situation like

limping with KQ, spiking a Q or K in a small unraised pot against

a small # of opp's, and checking the flop.


Checking after you raise the blind, just seems like a weak

overall strategy to me. It should raise a red flag and you

probably won't make any money off an opp. like this.


If you could tell me where/what section you read it, I'd be grateful.

This is really an excellent answer. Thanks Glen