Strange Pot - Checkraise that flop

[nate1729]

Thanks for the nice comments.

Ah, the question of whether what will make the rest of the hand "easier" or "harder" to play -- that's one of the biggest questions here.

I often imagine these sorts of questions in terms of a very specific tradeoff:
-Which play has the highest immediate equity?
-Which play allows me to have more equity in the rest of the hand?
-Which of these two considerations predominates?

These questions might seem obvious, but actually asking them to myself in series often clarifies my thinking about a hand.

I am willing to admit that I often have at least a small equity edge in terms of immediate action; T9 has at least a good amount of value against a random hand (BB,) an almost-random hand (Ed,) and a third hand taken from a very wide range (Daniel.)

The problem is that checkraising can cost us lots of money in future action. We're suffering from a remarkable information defecit. It's easy to imagine all sorts of scenarios in which we'll make fold incorrectly, call incorrectly, and miss lots of value.

It is less common than many people think to sacrifice immediate equity for playing advantages later, but I think this case is extreme: our immediate equity edge is slight if it exists at all, and the reverse implied odds are catastrophic.

Again, I'd like to emphasize that our opportunity to eliminate players is not as great as it seems. The big blind's hand is random, so for the raise to knock him out we need the parlay of {he will play for one bet} and {he will not play for two bets} to come in, which is improbable; Ed isn't folding; and Daniel is capable of lots of strange things. Remember the situation's the same: Daniel needs to fold for two bets but not one to make the play work. (There's also the interesting phenomenon of Daniel's being somewhat likely to make an unsound play that turns out to be Sklansky-correct.)

Again, thanks for participating in this discussion. I hope it continues.

--Nate