Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

With no PF raise and a 3 or 4 way pot, you have two cards in the blinds and complete/call. You flop something decent that isn't easily counterfeitable (let's say you have A6 on an A85 board) and check/call a bet. You check the 2 turn and your opponent checks behind.

The river is a 3. How often do you bet and how often do you check?

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

If there is no possible flush I'd bet this probably 75% of the time.

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

Well, I'd be leading the turn personally, I think. Well, maybe not on an A high flop but if I had Q6 on Q85, then definitely.

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

[ QUOTE ]
With no PF raise and a 3 or 4 way pot, you have two cards in the blinds and complete/call. You flop something decent that isn't easily counterfeitable (let's say you have A6 on an A85 board) and check/call a bet. You check the 2 turn and your opponent checks behind.

The river is a 3. How often do you bet and how often do you check?

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably like 50 / 50. There's a big problem of what calls that you beat? Obviously some hands, but it's a problem. Having said that there are lots of people who just will never have you beat playing their hand like that. I really like giving them the check check though because they bet alot of hands; a lot of people bet more hands than they call with, which is nice. Being bluff raised is not a concern. So it depends on the opponent, but my default is to check here and let them take a stab.

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

[ QUOTE ]
With no PF raise and a 3 or 4 way pot, you have two cards in the blinds and complete/call. You flop something decent that isn't easily counterfeitable (let's say you have A6 on an A85 board) and check/call a bet. You check the 2 turn and your opponent checks behind.

The river is a 3. How often do you bet and how often do you check?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b3...feet/stuff.jpg

Sorry for the tiny pic, mussed up somewhere between excel, paint, photobucket.

Situations like this intrigue me - namely because I'm uncertain which is both more profitable with the hand, and less of a spew without.

I played with what I thought were reasonable assumptions regarding the likelihood of most of the scenarios. The %'s are CERTAINLY debatable. But given the inactivity on the turn, I think they are worth considering.

With THESE %'s, leading seems to be the way to go, with or without the winning hand (this was also the case making hero the showdown dog as well...not displayed)

Hero's chips in play: 20 PF, 60 flop, 100 (possibly) river

...playing the hand 10x's to sum %*chips



DISCLAIMER: I am nothing short of HORRID at math. Please rip me mercifully if something rediculous jumps out at you.

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

Wouldn't this be the perfect spot to apply Daniel N's new revolutionary strategy, the "Blocking Bet"?

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

There is nothing to block against (unless you believe an Ace with a better kicker checks twice on a relatively harmless board).

I see it as a question of how to best get paid off here. Either by betting (representing a bluff) or by checking (inducing a bluff). Most of the players I encounter are so passive that if they have checked twice, they most likely won't mind checking the river. I think there is a bigger chance of someone with a worse hand calling by bet than them bluffing.

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't this be the perfect spot to apply Daniel N's new revolutionary strategy, the "Blocking Bet"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Blocking bets are pretty useless in stts as well as pretty much all online mtts. The stacks are too shallow.

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

OK, there's a drop of blood in my left tear duct, and I smell almonds - Me thinks me thinks too hard.

One more try...

I'm with big on the not calling as often.

First set of columns: Calling only 1/2 the time, 1/2 the time with the lessor hand - leading is clearly better (well, comparing against the check %'s).

Second set of columns: Calling 1/2 the time, but now a little more only with a better hand - Leading is better!! "duh", I suppose.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b3...eet/stuff4.jpg

So...yeah, regardless of whether we think our hand is superior at showdown, we gain more by not leading if it's reasonable to assume when calling, there is a slightly better chance of him doing so only with the better hand.

Changing vote to 'check'. Answer please!! [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

[ QUOTE ]
So...yeah, regardless of whether we think our hand is superior at showdown, we gain more by not leading if it's reasonable to assume when calling, there is a slightly better chance of him doing so only with the better hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Contraire Bluefeet!!

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b3...eet/stuff5.jpg

"regardless of whether we think our hand is superior...." -- not true maybe

the mo webee better, the mo hebee aint callin, even knowing when he doobee callin webee losin

LEAD!!! (because I think we are ahead enough here...maybe [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img])

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

Reading this makes me think I don't check enough.

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing to block against (unless you believe an Ace with a better kicker checks twice on a relatively harmless board).

I see it as a question of how to best get paid off here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since we just established that even most 2+2'ers never check behind on the turn with a hand...

That's half the answer (2+2 or not). Now, given that the action so far has gone complete, check/call, check/check, how *do* you get paid on this river?

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

At lower levels, 11-55, most players will call a 1/3 pot bet at this point w/ high card or any pair, but no more than 1/2.

Don't know about high levels, maybe a push would disguise the hand [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

[ QUOTE ]
Corollary to citanul's 'something to think about' post

[/ QUOTE ]

now that your a lawyer are u gonna be using words like that alot?

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

Bet 74.5% of the time.

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

check/calling small bets on the river is not the problem. what if he decides to bet big or push? in which case, i would fold. (is this the wrong play?)

so i'll bet the river 90%.

jc

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

Bump.

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

At my stakes, I bet this 100% of the time, as MHIG ~80% of the time and I'm called about 80% of the time and raised 10% of the time, frequently by 67.

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

Give him the opportunity to bet his 2 face cards. He tried one stab at the pot on the flop (as he should)...but the the turn was check/check, and you check again the river, thats not common from a good hand. So he is apt to think "maybe he missed" and fire a small bet at the river.

If this hand was constructed to show hero feeling HHIG, and that villain has weak/no hand, then for sure checking the river is going to get more money out of him.

The only difficulty with this as your standard line is that some villains will be making LARGE river bets, with a good hand or not. (these, are the "good" players). So i'd imagine that vs. certain very aggro opponents, if you had it well noted, you'd be too apt to be taken off the best hand, so you'd have to bet out. But i dont play against anyone but random low-stakers, so i check this river, and harvest a pathetic bluff 50% of the time. Perhaps only a few times per session will i have paid off a better hand.

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

Maybe I'm just really stupid, but I bet this 100% of the time unless I know my opponent to be very aggressive and will bet a worse hand. Considering he checked behind on the ragged turn it's pretty unlikely that that's the case.

Lots of players will call with a PP, an 8, maybe even a lower pair or king high. They won't bet it though...so I throw out a value bet and hope it gets called.

As an aside (corollary to your corollary?), I would never check the turn either. The poker version of never, at least, meaning as a general rule and without specific reads to suggest against it.

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

Personally I rarely call that flop...

Given the set of circumstances you've described, I'd do a 1/3rd to 1/2 pot blocking/value bet on the river most of the time.

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

I don't call the flop. All of you call the flop with this hand? I think that's a poor play in this structure of a tournament.

moses

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

With the BB under 100, I would check/call because a bluff wouldn't be a huge blow to my stack. When the blinds are bigger, I would bet 1/3rd the pot because a bluff by the villain could be over 600, which I wouldn't really enjoy calling. Like Degen said, I would probably fold this flop without reads.

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

So basically, none of you guys ever do this.

PokerStars Game #3241296349: Tournament #15323030, Hold'em No Limit - Level V (75/150) - 2005/12/04 - 17:43:44 (ET)
Table '15323030 249' Seat #7 is the button
Seat 1: dan2811 (4330 in chips)
Seat 2: Duke Charles (2415 in chips)
Seat 3: R0CKET88 (5255 in chips)
Seat 4: dk winner (4295 in chips)
Seat 5: Lynzeee (6090 in chips)
Seat 6: keke22 (6337 in chips)
Seat 7: Valpen (3395 in chips)
Seat 8: RuthieR (1960 in chips) is sitting out
Seat 9: adanthar (1980 in chips)
RuthieR: posts small blind 75
adanthar: posts big blind 150
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to adanthar [As 8c]
dan2811: calls 150
Duke Charles: folds
R0CKET88: calls 150
dk winner: folds
Lynzeee: folds
keke22: folds
Valpen: calls 150
RuthieR: folds
adanthar: checks
*** FLOP *** [Ac 9s 9d]
adanthar: checks
dan2811: bets 450
R0CKET88: folds
Valpen: folds
adanthar: calls 450
*** TURN *** [Ac 9s 9d] [7h]
adanthar: checks
dan2811: checks
*** RIVER *** [Ac 9s 9d 7h] [3d]
adanthar: checks
dan2811: bets 1200
adanthar: calls 1200
*** SHOW DOWN ***
dan2811: shows [4s 6s] (a pair of Nines)
adanthar: shows [As 8c] (two pair, Aces and Nines)
adanthar collected 3975 from pot

I don't always or even very often play a hand like this. But if you don't ever do it, I think it's a leak.

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

yeah...except I put my last 180 in for good measure? Whats that all about?

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

I forget, I think I was talking to someone and didn't realize I'd have chips left or something.

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

[ QUOTE ]
I forget, I think I was talking to someone and didn't realize I'd have chips left or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess he couldve actually folded anyway...lol

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

Adanthar--

Why don't you always play this way? What is your "typical" line?

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

I play like this whenever I think my opponent is more likely to say 'here are my chips, take them' when I check than when I bet.

How often I think that depends on my table image, his table image and the table's image.

(not really being obtuse here, you should always be on top of at least two out of those three within a few hands or so)