[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
everyone in this thread is on crack. youre giving up too much value checking here.

[/ QUOTE ]

you aren't giving up any value really. you're just giving up a nice chunk of a 24 SB pot

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this concept applies in this situation if you assume (as I am) that opponents will call getting 25+:1. Let's say someone has a PP and therefore a 2-outer. He'll call the flop but fold the turn UI. Since he'll hit on the turn 2/45 times, or approximately 4.4% of the time, the check costs Hero .0956 of a small bet from Villain minus 0.044 of a Hero's bet -- it doesn't cost 4.4% of the 24 SB pot (1.06 SBs) unless Villain would fold to a flop bet. Basically, I'm saying I don't think you can look at it from the standpoint of opponents' collective equity in the pot unless you first assume that they will fold incorrectly -- without that assumption, a check potentially misses out on value but doesn't give away any portion of a large pot.

[/ QUOTE ]


you're saying there's no difference between giving 25-1 and 25-0?

[/ QUOTE ]

No I'm saying that giving 25-0 is sacrificing value by not collecting bets from players with worse hands that will call, but is not "giving up" a chunk of the existing 24 SB pot. It would be conceptually giving up a chunk of the pot if a bet would have folded a hand that has a live draw. If Villain has 10% equity but would have folded to a bet, I've conceptually "given up" 2.4 SBs (or my share of that equity if the hand is multiway) by failing to bet; if the same Villain would have called a bet, I've given up 0.8 of a bet but haven't "given up" any of the existing pot.

Put another way -- if Villain would fold to a bet, then by checking I've given away the equity in the existing pot that Villain would have sacrificed (actually a portion of if others remain in the pot); if Villain wouldn't fold but would instead call, then by checking I've given up my equity in the bets that would have gone into the pot (i.e., value).