Re: A value bet
 

TOM?

Re: A value bet
 

[ QUOTE ]
You will rarely see trips bet into a possible flush/straight draw board at Foxwoods, even if the flush cards are pretty dead!


[/ QUOTE ]

Thas's because if you put your opponent on a drawing hand ( and thats all..important point ), there is no point in betting trips on the river if you don't improve, you are only going to get called by a hand that beats you. You are much better off letting your opponent try and bet his busted draw.

O one more thing....I disagree with your analysis of the $20-40 game at Foxwoods. ( you were more accurate with the $10-20 game though )

CJ

Re: A value bet
 

[ QUOTE ]
TOM?

[/ QUOTE ]

Tight Old Men?

Re: A value bet
 

It is a pretty basic value bet that a lot of people miss. If your board was a little drawier, it might make checking ok if your opponent is timid.

I used to check trips alot on the river to hands that looked like they could be drawing hands. Ironically, this hurt me less against better players would would value bet two pair into me [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Since lately I tend to make more anti-value bets than value bets it hasn't been an issue for me.

TOM == Tight Old Man n/t
 

.

Re: A value bet
 

Definitely more true in the 10/20 then 20/40.

My point was that many, on seeing three flush cards on board will check not because they think he is on a drawing hand, but in case they are on a drawing hand. That is it is fear driven not analysis driven.

Re: A value bet
 

I thought the rule was only bet after the river if you have the nuts. Because if he has the nuts he raises and if he does not have the nuts he folds. Howevewr I guess that's where knowing your opponents comes in, if i figure you to be agressive i check my trips and let you bet into me check raising you for an additional bet.
Again going one step further, I would guess that you really have them down pat and that they play too tight so that the opponents check was signifying 2 pair and not trips.
I would agree with you being slightly less tight then the rest would seem to be optimal strategy as it would cause them to play in accurately against you and from Sklanskys 1st law of poker that means that you have an edge over time.

Re: A value bet
 

[ QUOTE ]
I thought the rule was only bet after the river if you have the nuts. Because if he has the nuts he raises and if he does not have the nuts he folds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if "the nuts" applies to Stud the same way it applies to 'flop' games like Hold'em and Omaha.

With 'board' games how do you know what the 'nuts' is exactly? I think you have to bet the river with what you think is probably the best hand.

... Or in my case, any hand in a desperate hope they'll fold. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: A value bet
 

It's tough to make the nuts in this game. If you can't bet the river without a lock, you will only be able to beat the easiest of games.

Re: A value bet
 

Maybe it's because I am primarily a Hold'em player and I suck at stud, but this sure looks like an easy value bet to me. (Note to self: Experiment with c/r bluffing rivers against good value betting players if I ever take up stud.)