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])