[naphand]

I found myself thinking exactly this last night when considering my standard flop play in this spot, and came to the conclusion that the flop CR was questionable depending on the circumstances.

For example, if you are defending a raise in the BB with a hand like 97s and the flop comes 762, or similar. A CR will get 2 bets in against raisors "overcards"; in many cases where the flop comes ragged we will be against overcards (be they AQ, KT etc.). But when we check and get the bet, opponent will have correct odds to draw to his overcards on the Turn. Our CR may get extra money in the pot, but it does not force our opponent to make a mistake. Of course it can be argued that his flop bet was a mistake, but this is SOP after a PFR as a way to pick up the pot when the defender misses (which is about 66% of the time). The pre-flop aggressors play (betting the flop) is correct in a general sense, and his call of our CR is also correct with any two overcards.

When we bet the Turn the pot is 5.25 BB (assuming it was HU with the PFR and ourselves in the BB) opponent would be incorrect to draw with just his overcards (6.67:1), although it could be argued that with at least 1 more bet guaranteed on the River opponent is only making a small mistake by calling here. However, the flop CR makes life a lot easier for opponent on the flop, and if one other player also calls the PFR (for arguments sake, we say they fold the flop) putting 1 extra BB in the pot, then his Turn call is close enough to be justified. It is very close.

So why CR the flop? Betting out would make the opponent incorrect to call the flop bet on overcards, and again on the Turn.

As for betting the flop and CR the Turn, this is only going to work if, specifically, opponent will either

(i) Raise our flop bet AND bet the Turn (but the flop raise is to buy a free card...)
or
(ii) Opponent is sufficiently aggressive to bet the Turn when checked to.

So, in short, we need an opponent who is aggressive enough to bet the Turn with just overcards or a draw, and particularly after being bet into on the flop.

As the standard play for a PFR is to bet the flop, and to raise the flop for a Turn free card, I do not see many opportunities to both bet out on the flop AND gat a CR in on the Turn against PFR holding overs against our weak pair.

The situation may vary of course, we might pick up 2-pair or 2nd-pair (on a raggy board we can treat this the same as TP) or we may have a draw. CR the flop gets more money in but makes playing the rest of the hand easier for the pre-flop aggressor, he can certainly take one more off with overs (and correctly so).

When we pick up a pair, it seems to me we force the opponents holding overs to make mistakes on the flop and Turn by just betting out. The CR does not do this, both because the standard play of betting the flop after a PFR is (generally) correct AND because the CR gives overs correct odds to draw and therefore call.

A strategy that is more likely to work is check-calling the flop and CR the Turn. If opponent bets the flop and bets the Turn as standard then a flop check-call and Turn CR looks a better play, as we now force our opponent to call incorrectly on the Turn, a more expensive mistake (although this too is very close, see below). We need the Turn to be favourable of course but, as already stated, a flop CR is correctly called by the pre-flop aggressor so he is going to see the Turn at least, we cannot stop this (and our CR gives him the correct price to draw). I think we will see a lot more players betting the flop and Turn as standard (to prevent free cards) than calling a flop bet and then betting the Turn.

This requires some pretty good reads in order to be successful and the bet-bet line would appear to be more correct than CR-bet, even check-call-CR (folding to a 3-bet) gives opponent 6:1 on the Turn (HU from flop) with odds of 6.67:1. By playing bet-bet opponent is not getting correct odds to call on either street.

This issue of strategy when defending the blinds after the flop is highly dependent on pot size. In a typically small pot HU on the flop, the bet-bet line appears to be best and has the added benefit of being guaranteed to succeed (a CR can go wrong, of course).

Anyone care to discuss?