Re: Live 4/8 hand
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah I agree on betting the flop here. While the flop is dry enough that we don't need to protect so badly, the pot is fairly large, and we can still make our opponents commit FTOP errors by (1) folding the flop with an ace or (2) calling the flop without one.
To clarify the river, I think b/f is probably best the way hero played the hand. But if villain had raised preflop and Hero had 3-bet, I like c/c better. My point was just that when you get to the river, don't just follow a line because you saw someone else do it, figure out why a particular line is best.
[/ QUOTE ]
The line wasn't taken to play, 'oh look, I can use WA/WB here, aren't I so damn cool'. The table was playing as passively as you can imagine a live 4/8 table playing. (If you haven't played live, think "loose .5/1"). Leading the flop here and offering 10:1 and better for those farther back seemed assinine. I really, really doubt that I have the best hand in this situation, however I had planned to c/r a LP bettor, had there been one. When villain bets his hand my c/r plan is no good, and when the rest of the table folds leaving me HU, why not play the hand WA/WB?
Still think it's horrible?
[/ QUOTE ]
If you are checking because you don't think you have the best hand, then you should be checking and folding becuase you don't have the correct odds to continue, will have to put in many more bets to get to showdown, and gain nothing in the way of protection or control or value by checking.
If you think you have enough equity here on average to continue past the flop, betting is much better. Your hand is really not that vulnerable, so checking in the attempt to protect your hand with a check-raise is really not necessary. Giving a free card is much worse than giving a 1 SB card here. Betting is far better also because, even if you don't have a clear equity edge, it is far better to take the initiative and attempt to clarify your hand, rather than blindly checking and committing to a showdown. As long as you are the one betting, you have much better control over the number of bets you have to put into the pot. I generally don't advocate the "betting for information" line, but this is a pretty clear case where betting will make the hand so much easier to play and give you such a better idea of where you stand, that it is much better than checking. The fact that the table is playing passively makes me want to bet more, to a degree; if I get raised, I'm folding quickly and with a minimal investment.
(If you really think checking is better because the table is so passive and so you'll get a better sense of where you are by checking, then you should be checking and folding to what appears to be a legit flop value bet. Checking and calling an early position bet makes absolutely zero sense here.)
|