The Overuse of the WA/WB line Out of Position
 

I'm not going to go as far as to say that the WA/WB check/call, check/call, bet line sucks when out of position like another poster did in the "Clarkmeister Theory" thread, but I do think he has a point.

I think it is overused in a couple situations at games like 10/20 6max. The main one that I see is when you flop an ace from the BB against a blind steal. Let's say the board is A82. Unless the guy has a pair of 8s or 2s, 34, or 45 you are way ahead.

The idea of taking he WA/WB line here is to minimize your losses when you are drawing to 3 outs and maximize your gain when your opponent is drawing to two or less (with a lower pocket pair or unpaired cards).

I think a lot of the theory behind this line in this spot is that you don't want your opponent folding a lower pair here. Instead, you want him to keep firing with it. The current state of the 10/20 6max is such that people rarely fold pairs on this board (or ever). Therefore, checkraising the flop often gains maximum value. Furthermore, there are some donks willing to 3bet you or raise the turn with weaker hands, so you get even more value when this happens.

A second big problem is when your opponent checks the turn with a hand he would have called a bet with. It is not uncommong for an opponent to check through here with KK/QQ or even 45.

One thing that is good about checkraising is that your opponents will often not believe you have the ace because you only called their preflop raise, and aces often 3bet. A lot of times they will peel the flop INCORRECTLY with a KJ/KQ sort of hand, which is sweet. So checkraising the flop often does not prevent them from pairing on the turn and paying you off.

One other thing is that you are forced to bet the river and decide whether you call a raise. If you always fold that is pretty exploitable. Against a lot of players, though, you are almost never ahead when raised. It is often just a really tough decision that is easy to mess up.

The check/call, check/call, bet line in this spot can be great against certain over-aggro or overly tight opponents. But against most I don't think it is optimal. I think checkraising the flop or calling and donking the turn is better. It is also good against players whose range you can narrow down such that you are often way behind (against a preflop capper for instance). Against such players, the risk:reward ratio isn't great.


I'd like to get some thoughts on this from some of you guys who play similar games.

I also have some thoughts about how the current state of the 10/20 6max game necessitates waiting until the turn to raise most good hands and heavily reducing flop semibluff checkraises HU OOP even with hands as strong as flush draws. If anyone is interested maybe I'll write about that in another post and we can discuss.

EDIT: Also, on flops like A86 there are a ton of draws that will 3bet or call the flop checkraise (79, 9J, 9T, etc.)

Re: The Overuse of the WA/WB line Out of Position
 

typically my play in this spot is use the always ahead line... worked for me so far (70/70 in pt)

this is how it goes.

btn open. I call AQ in BB for [censored] metagame. flop AAQ. i bet he raises. i 3-bet and type in the chat box that i'm c/ring the turn.

i find this works well against most legally blind opponents at pp10/20.

he cap it and next thing you know i send the wifey shoppin.

Re: The Overuse of the WA/WB line Out of Position
 

I know you're only a gimmick, but why did you choose to pounce on this well-thought-out post?

OP: I agree with you. As you say, the majority of players will call down with any piece of the board, and Clarking it can cost you up to 2BB in missed opportunity if he won't always bet the turn with value. Plus, the river BFN is transparent to any half-attentive player who plays in these games regularly. Unless you are throwing in some river BFN purebluffs, you're serving up solid information that even the least creative player can take advantage of.

Re: The Overuse of the WA/WB line Out of Position
 

I aggree on several points. 1st I felt that I was playing the ace line too often...to the point where I was thinking... why slow play everydamn A split pair weak kicker. That cant be right to default to fastplaying sets, etc. and default to slowplaying weak A's. So the issue has something also to do with deception, IMO. People are afraid of A's when they dont have em. Sets are conceiled for example. Anyway, I wont attempt to complete that thought.

2nd thing is I had a hand like QQ on a board like A83 the other day and some unknown fuker cr'd me on the flop. Of course I called it down. He had the Ax.. and I decide that I liked his play a ton.

So I am going to be general and say that the weak A line is probably got to be rethought for more situational/types of villains.

Good thoughts Funky L.

Re: The Overuse of the WA/WB line Out of Position
 

If they are checking behind too much, you need to peel more with K high and Q high. If your rag aces aren't getting paid off, you need to checkraise the flop more with air and take away pots with 7 high. This specific line sucks when playing in HU blind situations, especially when you are probably not going to get to the river unless you have a pair and are not going to lead the river unless you have specifically a pair of aces.

Re: The Overuse of the WA/WB line Out of Position
 

[ QUOTE ]
So I am going to be general and say that the weak A line is probably got to be rethought for more situational/types of villains.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yea, this was basically the main point of my argument. Often, especially on the lower limit boards, someone will categorize a situaiton as WA/WB and suggest that hero take the "WA/WB" line. This is WAY too simplistic. The following variables need to be defined:

1) How are we definining WA/WB in this spot? This answer will depend on pot size, implied odds (especially in no limit), and other things.

2) What is the ratio of WA:WB. Are we ahead 70% of the time? 40 %?

3) How will our opponents react when ahead? When behind? Will they calldown with 22?

Once we know these things, THEN we can decide which line is optimal.

Re: The Overuse of the WA/WB line Out of Position
 

I learned the WA/WB line in small stakes full games and in that area it works very well because in general the range of hands you can put an opponent on in full games is tighter and the games are more passive in general. As the table becomes more shorthanded, and your opponents range of hands widens, you can often do better by being more aggressive with your weak aces because your opponent won't be able to get away from those hands that are WB so easily.

Re: The Overuse of the WA/WB line Out of Position
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to go as far as to say that the WA/WB check/call, check/call, bet line sucks when out of position like another poster did

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't say it sucks....I said it BLOWS.

Carry on.

Re: The Overuse of the WA/WB line Out of Position
 

I have never been a fan of the check-call, check-call, bet-fold line with KK or Ax on an Ace high board for a number of reasons. Below are three of them. There are some combinations of conditions which probably make this line optimal, but most of these combinations are rarely present in the online games familiar to most of us. First, we have to be able to trust our opponent to only raise the river with better hands than ours. Second, we have to estimate that he will call our river bet with more hands than he would have bet with if we had checked. Third, we have to believe that he is not only capable but likely to fold worse hands on the flop or the turn if we checkraise or donk when he would have kept betting with them otherwise.

The first one alone is very troublesome to me unless I have a fairly solid read on the opponent. It is a catastrophe to fold the best hand to a river raise. The second reason is also a problem, although it becomes less so as the skill level of our opponent increases. There are countless opponents who will bet every street here with any pair and many who will bet every street with any two cards if they have been shown no resistance after raising preflop. The third reason is similar to the second in that it is problematic against typically poor opponents and becomes more plausible against better ones who are more likely to check behind us on the turn with nothing hands and with pairs they would have paid off with had we checkraised the flop or donked the turn.

Conceptually speaking, I think many people see reference to "way ahead/way behind" and assume that these two scenarios are somewhat equally likely. They are not. In the typical "way ahead/way behind" situation in which we have Ax on an Ace high flop heads up against a preflop raiser, we have the best hand on the flop at least 2/3 of the time almost regardless of our opponents hand preflop hand range! That means we are "way ahead" twice as often as we are "way behind". So the issue of maximizing value when we are ahead far outweighs the issue of saving bets when we are behind.

Basically I think against opponents who can't be trusted to only raise the river with worse hands, when we have Ax or KK on an Ace high board there is usually at least one better line than check-call, check-call, bet-fold. Against opponents who hate to fold heads up and love to play back, I just checkraise the flop and go from there. Versus autobettors I usually either simply check and call every street or with my better kickers check-call the flop and turn and then bet-call the river. In the cases in which my opponent is a solid player I begin to check-call the flop and donk the turn with more frequency.

Cartman

Re: The Overuse of the WA/WB line Out of Position
 

Did you know that K [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] has 52.3% pot equity versus random cards on an A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]8 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] flop?

There is something about the ace and possibly drawing dead that really distorts player's perception of heads up hand values. Ax is a big hand.