KK different line

aslowjoe · #1 07-04-2005, 11:35 AM

Took a slightly different line that I usually would take. Your thoughts

Party Poker 5/10 Hold'em (6 max, 4 handed) converter

Preflop: Hero is SB with K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img].
2 folds, Hero raises, BB calls.

Flop: (4 SB) 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (2 players)
Hero bets, BB calls.

Turn: (3 BB) Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (2 players)
Hero checks, BB bets, Hero calls.

River: (5 BB) 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (2 players)
Hero bets, BB calls.

Final Pot: 7 BB

irishpint · #2 07-04-2005, 11:43 AM

whats the point? it's the same as if we bet every street ($ wise), except we lose fold equity. would this villian bluff the turn and call the river with a Q or a piece of the board lower than A thiking you whiffed? plus when we're ahead we risk giving a free card to the flush draw on the turn and lose a bet.

dave44 · #3 07-04-2005, 04:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
it's the same as if we bet every street ($ wise), except we lose fold equity.

[/ QUOTE ]
Villain has no reason to fold a better hand or a hand with odds, so fold equity means nothing here really.

aslowjoe · #4 07-04-2005, 06:59 PM

My thinking is here. I am risking very little by him drawing for free id indeed he is behind. It seems more and more players seem to be peeling one off even with an A on board.
So by letting him bet I won't get cr if behind or bluffed out. If ahead I induce him to bluff. I bet the river in case he caught a pair or had PP to begin with. I fold to a raise.

Surfbullet · #5 07-04-2005, 07:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
My thinking is here. I am risking very little by him drawing for free id indeed he is behind. It seems more and more players seem to be peeling one off even with an A on board.
So by letting him bet I won't get cr if behind or bluffed out. If ahead I induce him to bluff. I bet the river in case he caught a pair or had PP to begin with. I fold to a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the issue here is that your turn check and river bet conflict with one another, fundamentally speaking. If he's the type of player to call too much, then we should bet both streets because he'll go to SD with smaller PPs or a Q or a 7 etc. He'll also call spades + hearts, which we don't want to give a free card to b/c we make money when they call.

If he's the type of player to bet too much when checked to then we should be inducing bluffs - when you bet the river you're folding out lots of hands that are busted draws, or weak pairs taht might have bet when you checked.

It comes down to what type of player you think he is. There are LAGs at the who will bet anything when checked to...andthere are loose-passives who will call nearly anything when you bet at them.

You're banking on the turn that he'll bet a worse hand when checked to (and one that he would have folded if you bet, else your check to induce a bluff is meaningless, just bet yourself) but then on the river he's supposed to call with the hands he would have folded the turn?

Just something to think about.

Surf

SomethingClever · #6 07-04-2005, 07:08 PM

I've done this before against really bluffy types, but I check/call the river also.

I have to have a very strong bluff read to attempt it.

Against most players of course I bet the turn.

aslowjoe · #7 07-04-2005, 07:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]
think the issue here is that your turn check and river bet conflict with one another, fundamentally speaking. If he's the type of player to call too much, then we should bet both streets because he'll go to SD with smaller PPs or a Q or a 7 etc. He'll also call spades + hearts, which we don't want to give a free card to b/c we make money when they call.

If he's the type of player to bet too much when checked to then we should be inducing bluffs - when you bet the river you're folding out lots of hands that are busted draws, or weak pairs taht might have bet when you checked.

It comes down to what type of player you think he is. There are LAGs at the who will bet anything when checked to...andthere are loose-passives who will call nearly anything when you bet at them.

You're banking on the turn that he'll bet a worse hand when checked to (and one that he would have folded if you bet, else your check to induce a bluff is meaningless, just bet yourself) but then on the river he's supposed to call with the hands he would have folded the turn?

Just something to think about.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree with what you said. That is why I posted. It does seem to conflict. I sort of changed my mind in midstream. In this case it worked out perfect because he hit his pair on the turn. Sometimes it is better to be lucky then smart