A Balancing Act

[Schneids]

Dabbling in a few higher games online, where you're playing with more observant opponents and quite often a lot of the same people day-to-day, I've noticed the increased importance of varying your play... How often is it necessary to do something like this...?

Hand One
Hero raises KsQs in EP. CO and Button call, as do both blinds... Flop [8s Qd 6h]; Hero bets, Button calls and BB calls. Turn [2s]; Check, Hero checks, Button bets, BB folds, Hero raises... Button folds.

To set up other plays like this, with say AK or 77...:
Hand Two
Hero raises in EP, gets an LP cold caller and a blind defender... Flop [Qs Jd 5h]; Hero bets only LP calls. Turn [Jc]; Hero checks, LP bets, Hero raises, LP folds.


I think it's pretty clear that with a tight image (which I possess in full ring) the ultimate goal is to do hand 1 just often enough (where they'll probably fold or I'm hoping I get called down to show I c/r'ed with a strong hand) _just barely_ often enough, to gain more fold equity for situations like hand 2. In hand 1 I do expect them to call me down most of the time if I keep betting it, so, I'm basically giving up a little bit of EV in hand 1 spots hoping to earn it back in the rare hand 2 spots by winning a whole pot I didn't deserve.

Does this make sense? How often should I be incorporating this type of thinking? So far I've done this a few times and generally always gotten immediate folds.

[DrGutshot]

The other way to look at these scenarios is instead of showing down just enough strong c/r hands to get fold equity with weak hands, to show down just enough weak c/r hands to get called in the spots where you have strong hands.

I am curious if there is any mathematical approach to show which is more profitable. Anyone have input?

-DrG

[fsuplayer]

i like it, but a small problem is that they will fold alot of hands to your turn CR that they might have called the turn and river with.

but then again you can charge them two big bets sometimes when they are drawing. unless of course they check behind.

i like it in moderation.

[TStoneMBD]

any moves that you can intuitively balance out an equal ev with its counterpart, for metagame considerations is a great move. i like the move alot, but the goal is to make this move often enough that you dont lose anything by doing it. unfortunately i am not experienced enough, nor do i know the players well enough at this level to determine how often you need to make this move in order to show neural ev. if you take the time to think about how often you plan on making this move, id be fascinated by your thought process.

[Nate tha' Great]

Good post.

Here's an even simpler situation that I've been thinking about: you raise first in and one of the blinds defends. The flop is something semi-coordinated like J74 with a flush draw and you are check-raised.

Now, in playing the Party 15/30 games, I've taken to playing this situation as straightforwardly as possible. That is, I will almost always (80-85% of the time) reraise immediately with a good hand, and almost always (90-95 of the time) just call with overcards unless I have some particularly good redraws. I'm convinced that this is the right approach in this game; playing it fast on the flop tends to get the most money into the pot IMHO, whereas playing back at people with overcards isn't worthwhile. The strategy is imbalanced and a little exploitable, but it works.

In the higher limit online games that I'll play, I've applied essentially the same approach, and I've noticed that people are fairly often just calling the 3-bet on the flop, and check-folding the turn if they don't improve. Logically, it seems that I either ought to be slowplaying big hands more often, or playing back at people more when I've missed.

I'll leave it at that for now but I have essentially the same question that you do: how much more important does varying your play become once you get beyond say the 15/30-20/40 level?

[mmcd]

playing back at people more when I've missed.

[Stork]

[ QUOTE ]
The other way to look at these scenarios is instead of showing down just enough strong c/r hands to get fold equity with weak hands, to show down just enough weak c/r hands to get called in the spots where you have strong hands.

I am curious if there is any mathematical approach to show which is more profitable. Anyone have input?

-DrG

[/ QUOTE ]

The initial way, c/ring with enough strong hands so you can steal with a weak hand is easily more profitable. The opposite way wins more turn bets, but this way wins more turn pots. Pot>bet.

[JasonP530]

The checkraise in hand 2 works a lot at the higher limits, as it knocks people off hands they would have called anyways. In hand 2, you have a 2 way checkraise, where if he doesnt bet with a better hand, you will have gotten a free shot at your gutshot+overcards, if he does bet, you can checkraise. I think the main benefit is to keep your opponents off balance, so that he doesnt get frisky and raise you and make you lay down something like TT or 99.

[DrGutshot]

very good point, thanks

-DrG