HOH Hand Question - Why play it like this?

[SossMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you checked everytime you had a bad hand and bet everytime you had a good one, you would become pretty easy to play against.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well I understand that part of it... it's the not a value bet, not a bluff part that throws me off. Not that I am advocating always check-calling either. Ugg. I hate NL [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

well, it becomes a value bet when mixed in with the occasional:
check raise with 88 in the same spot and it gets shown
check fold a lot in the same spot with a different hand

you clearly aren't check folding, so the play becomes, do I check raise, check call, or bet out. I think that a mix of these would be fine, with weighting depending on the previous hands you have and haven't shown down (esp. vs. this opponent).

[joeboe2001]

If you check after this flop you are giving a free card to an opponent with a bad hand and handing the reins over to an opponent with a good one.

[Roman]

Well I check raise here too if the opponent wont bluff again after I call an overbet on the flop (very very likely).

How much do you raise to and do you fold if he goes all in are the real questions [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[M.B.E.]

Joeboe, the problem specified that this opponent is an aggressive "table captain". After he raises preflop and is called by the big blind, he is very likely to bet again on the flop (especially a king-high flop like this one). Why? Because that's what aggressive players do. There's just not much chance he would "take a free card" by checking behind on the flop.

Also, you're right that it isn't a certainty we are ahead of the opponent when this flop comes and he bets 20K. However, there's a high chance that we are, because there is a very wide range of hands that he would have played that way.

[zaxx19]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's because you will occasionally have to do this with a hand like 88 also, so you sometimes have to have the goods.



[/ QUOTE ]

YUP. Or even air if someone is auto betting every goddamn flop.

[ecori]

I just read this problem in the book and it looks like the aggressive player is trying to steal the pot on the flop with his overbet. If he had a strong hand he probably would have bet half the pot giving you better pot odds to call him. By over-betting the pot he is giving you less than 2-1 pot odds. By calling those odds he knows you have a hand (after all, this is the 2nd day of a major tournament and the player is someone like Gus hansen, Phil Ivey, etc, so they're not morons). By calling instead of raising, I only see 2 scenarios happening:
1) you win the pot that is there now because he won't bet unless he actually makes something or
2) by giving him the free cards, you end up losing a big pot.

[PokerSponge]

This is what he refers to as the Hammer defense. You allow the aggressive player, how more than likely is play less than premium hand a chance to make a play at the flop, and then you drop the hammer on him.

If you bet out he will probably just fold and you get nothing from him. That is why you feign weakness to let him try and bully you.