Re: Good Check Behind?
 

You would bet into a guy that will call you, but won't bluff you out of any pot? Why? I especially don't understand it when this CS is protecting you from the one LAG in the hand, and you forfeit that protection by setting the LAG up for a check raise.

Re: Good Check Behind?
 

[ QUOTE ]
You would bet into a guy that will call you, but won't bluff you out of any pot? Why? I especially don't understand it when this CS is protecting you from the one LAG in the hand, and you forfeit that protection by setting the LAG up for a check raise.

[/ QUOTE ]


I bet this flop for a # of reasons:

* fold equity
* I may have the best hand
* I have additional equity in that there are a number of ways my hand can improve by the river.
* It's a crucial step in getting me cheaply to the river/showdown - in that it'll earn me a free card later on if need be.
* I maintain my aggression thereby maintaining my 'control' over the pot.



I would then check the turn because (assuming I got called by both villains):

* I was called in two spots on the flop, despite my ongoing aggression - indicating there's a good chance I'm behind.

* I have gained additional outs, and getting check-raised would really suck here (NOTE THE READ ON UTG as being "tricky").




Adam

Re: Good Check Behind?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You would bet into a guy that will call you, but won't bluff you out of any pot? Why? I especially don't understand it when this CS is protecting you from the one LAG in the hand, and you forfeit that protection by setting the LAG up for a check raise.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




I bet this flop for a # of reasons:

* fold equity
* I may have the best hand
* I have additional equity in that there are a number of ways my hand can improve by the river.
* It's a crucial step in getting me cheaply to the river/showdown - in that it'll earn me a free card later on if need be.
* I maintain my aggression thereby maintaining my 'control' over the pot.


[/ QUOTE ]


Well, betting certainly should be the default play. After all you only need to be ahead once in a long while for it to be profitable. But I don't like building a pot against a CS and a LAG. Often the LAG raises, the calling station calls, and hero ends up spending 1 bb while accomplishing nothing. Sometimes the CS folds, but even then hero has to spend an extra bb to see a showdown. Where if hero checks he can often induce the cs to bet and hero escapes without wasting a single sb extra, or the LAG bets and the CS calls and now hero can safely fold UI, or LAG bets and CS folds and Hero sees the showdown cheaper than if he bet the flop. The CS and LAG and their positions plus the coordinated board makes the default play less reliable.