Theory of Poker
I'm sure this has been discussed before but what's all this about not shutting an opponent out of the pot in hold'em on 4th street say when you hold a straight/flush and you put your opponent on 2 pair. DS says that he bets enough so that the opponent will make a fundamental error by drawing to the FH (that bit's fine by me) but then he went on to say that his opponent hits on fifth and he pays him off.
Despite being one of the first at my school to learn long multiplication, I am not going to consider challenging the thinking but I'd just like an explanation. All I can see is that any equity gained by tempting your opponent in is just lost when you pay it off on the end. Would it not just be better to shut him out and move on to the next? (That might have come across as a challenge. Take it as you wish).
|