[Snoogins47]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An interesting aside to this post. How many of you pot the river when it's checked to you because a scare hits that does not help your hand. I believe it is very profitable to do so when the three flush hits that misses both of you.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is actually the next piece of my game I am putting into practice, when to bluff the river when checked to. I've done it a handful of times into medium pots pretty much with success, which for some reason always surprised me when I took the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm consistently surprised whenever I take down pots, much moreso in Omaha than in other games. I don't even play much PLO, but I can't even count the number of times I've bet, thinking "I have to try this, but this is so obvious that one of these times they're going to play back at me" and somehow it never happens unless they have the immortal nuts. Monsters under the bed ABOUND in PLO.

Anyway, I like a smaller bet against a lot of opponents, especially the passive ones, when your hand has showdown value, but it's unlikely a frightened, passive opponent has the stones enough, and a hand enough, to raise the river. And it's hard to want to make a sizeable raise for him.

That said, there seems to be a growing portion of the poker population that prides themselves on betting constantly, whether in this case it be to take away the pot, or get "value" out of some stupid holding. Especially if they're on the looser side of life post flop, check-call is probably a vastly superior line to take with a straight here.


Yes that's right I just used like 800 words to say "Bet into a passive opponent, and check-call into a bluffer."