Semi-Bluff right or wrong?

[lapoker17]

Your bet on the flop is incorrect, unless you think your hand is good here, yet you can somehow extract money out of him with that board - Unlikely.

This flop should be check/call for a reasonable amount. You are drawing to the nuts twice - Any Ten or any club, so as long as the price is right, you should see the turn. If the board pairs, you're probably done with the hand.

If he checks the flop, then you have the best hand and should bet on any turn.

If the turn bricks after you check/call the flop, then if given the right price for your draw, you should call a bet again.

[riverboatking]

you seem a little non-chalant about the actual monetary values we are talking about.
you say he raises you call, and the pot size isn't important.
then you say you make a bet and he raises, and once again you make no mention about actuall sizes of these bets.
i fail to see how this information isn't relevant.

[iceman5]

Not only is the amount of money VERY relevant, but he also thinks the guy might have the Ac when its on the board already. Is this a real hand? Or a hypothetical situation?

[lapoker17]

Umm, yeah, good point.

[freemoney]

I feel like you are answering your own question, why would you semi-bluff if you know hes calling? if you think that then call the flop raise and see what comes on the turn, you have no fold equity making the semi-bluff make no sense

[kowboy]

Granted the post is hypothetical (post was written quickly, Ac on board already, my bad). This concept does however come up very often for me when I have a good/great drawing hand and I know that the villain will not be pushed off the pot, in tournament or real cash games. Some will theorize that by pushing all in he is forced to make the decision and you have a good chance of winning even if your behind at the moment. I wanted to know how other people view this concept. I didn't stress the money as being all encompassing because its the decision that matters (at least to me). If there is no money in the pot I wouldnt want to fight for it, but what if there is just enough? What I really wanted from the post was to get the ideas of others with the pros and cons of doing either. Thank you to those who didn't sweat all the details my post was ragged but the concept was genuine and thank you to any replies in general. Time is money and you gave it. The made hand vs. drawing hand when another wont lay the hand down should have been more clear and I apologize.

[freemoney]

It makes no sense if you are theorizing he wont fold, then you are just putting your money in as an underdog and becomes a simple math problem to see if the pot is laying you enough. Its not a semi-BLUFF if you have no folding equity

[kowboy]

Thanks, I agree with you that pot equity is going to control your move. But the gambler in me wants all his money. I sometimes get the urge to go for the stack and not whats in the middle. Limit play makes folding or calling or raising much easier, but when I can go for the stack thats in front of him with a good/great draw, I sometimes wonder. 50/50? Losing play most of the time?

[legend42]

You're trying to theorize about something but, as you've qualified it, you've taken all the theory out of it. If you know he has a big made hand, and you know he won't lay it down, then it becomes a basic question of pot/implied odds.

In your example, you say that the specific pot and bet amounts (and even the precise board cards and hands) don't really matter. Ironically, those are the only things that do matter in this case.

[freemoney]

its hard to theorize when its right to move in with a good/great draw, because the fold equity is all based on the other players strength and likelihood of calling, in your theorized situation with alot of live outs and if there was a decent amount of money i like moving in