[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
I think betting this might actually be less profitable for reasons that I have outlined.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'll do my best here.

Let's also assume has has a T here. The only reasonable hand here by villain is Tx. And since he limped UTG, let's restrict his hand range to AT-T9.

There is a 25% chance given his hand range that he has made a flush, less if you assume he will only limp T9s and JTs but not offsuit hands.
There is a 15% chance here he has filled up with QT.

So 40% of the time you are behind, 60% of the time here you are ahead. Let's also assume that he will raise with A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] or Q[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] but call the other 2 kickers, and he will raise with a boat. Assuming he bluffs 1 time in 20, 35% of the time he will raise when you bet, and 65% of the time he will call.

Then there is the inducing bluffs theory. For a typical player, this is about the scariest board there is. When opponent is checked to, I think he will bluff the river without a flush 10% of the time at best, will bet a better hand 40% of the time, and will check behind 50% of the time.


In the method where you bet, you gain 1 bet 55% of the time, lose 1 bet 10% of the time, lose 2 bets 30% of the time, and gain 2 bets 5% of the time. This is -0.05SB in EV (assuming you call a raise).


In the method where you check, you gain 1SB 10% of the time, lose 1SB 40% of the time, and gain nothing 50% of the time. This method is -0.30SB in EV.

You'd have to drastically increase the bluffing frequencies to make it +EV.

This may be wrong, I'm a little tired right now. Feel free to correct it.