Advanced Low Limit Tactic

[Big Dave D]

I think a more advanced play would be talking about why betting the pot on every street, especially the turn, is wrong in this spot.

gl

Dave

[BluffTHIS!]

Dave,

It is true that you should often just take the free card in position to avoid the possibility of being checkraised and to lose less if you don't hit and are up against a calling station who won't be bluffed if holding any pair for small money. I frequently do the same. However I stipulated that the opponent was not a known slowplayer/checkraiser. Also I play good draws aggressively in position just like I do sets.

[Acesover8s]

I am quite certain that Dave was not talking about checking the turn here, which is obviously terrible as you've given your opponent free reign to take the pot away if you miss on the river.

What he means is making smaller bets along the way when your opponent is shortstacked in order to control the pot better. I'd much rather have my opponent have a 1/2 pot size bet or more remaining so he will fold.

While, yes, occasionally opponents do fold to very small bets with bottom pair on the end, you'll find another group of people who will throw their giveup chips in because they're just gonna reload anyway.

Pot control is key.

[Big Dave D]

Yes this is it of course, Aces, I didnt realise I was being vague. And this is the advantage I have of almost never betting the pot. If he has 15-20 bucks left he really has a decision.

gl

dd

[beset7]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes this is it of course, Aces, I didnt realise I was being vague. And this is the advantage I have of almost never betting the pot. If he has 15-20 bucks left he really has a decision.

gl

dd

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought that you always bet less then the pot because you are British, Dave. Now I'm confused [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

I've been thinking about pot control a lot lately. It's hard once you fall into the aggro pattern of always BTP to recgonize how you are (a) accomplish expensively what can often times be accomplished less expensively (b) failing to create situations on the river where you can bluff effectively.

[Acesover8s]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been thinking about pot control a lot lately. It's hard once you fall into the aggro pattern of always BTP to recgonize how you are (a) accomplish expensively what can often times be accomplished less expensively (b) failing to create situations on the river where you can bluff effectively.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only problem with this is that you set yourself up to be read easily in spots where you'd really like to protect your hand to the maximum.

[beset7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've been thinking about pot control a lot lately. It's hard once you fall into the aggro pattern of always BTP to recgonize how you are (a) accomplish expensively what can often times be accomplished less expensively (b) failing to create situations on the river where you can bluff effectively.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only problem with this is that you set yourself up to be read easily in spots where you'd really like to protect your hand to the maximum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah that is the problem and one of the reasons why my default has been to keep my bet sizes relatively static to make it harder to read. But, and I'm still working on this of course, I've found that as I play against more cognizant opponents I can mix up my bet sizes a lot more as long a I don't fall into any set patterns (i.e. figure out how I might be expected to play a hand and then flip it). Most of this is only really effective short-handed.

In small stakes full-ring games the lineup changes so fast and the people appear to be only have paying attention to the game or just plain dumb often enough that these concerns or secondary most of the time. No?

[Big Dave D]

OK its that too!

Another nice thing about NOT BTP, especially short handed, is that you can play "how small a bet will win this pot for me". Because people TEND to pay more attention short handed, you can start to bet, value bet and steal with comparatively tiny bets.

gl

Dave D