Let's chat about these

[cassady]

[ QUOTE ]
1. There's a decent player (maybe a TAG) in the BB. You're MP3 with a red KK. Folded to you, you raise. Folded to the BB who calls.

Flop: 5 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]5 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]J [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

BB checks, you bet , he calls

Turn: 2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

BB checks, you ? and why?



[/ QUOTE ]

Fire out. You have the best hand, it's criminal to give a free card here.

[ QUOTE ]

2. You hold A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 5 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] in the CO.

Folded to you and you raise. The BB 3 bets. You call.

Flop: A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 3 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

BB bets, you call.

Turn: 7 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

BB checks, you ? and why?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're ahead here. I think this is a good spot to check behind to induce a bluff on the river.

[ QUOTE ]

3. You hold K [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] in the CO. 3 limpers to you, you raise, folded to BB who calls. 5 to the flop for 10.5 sb.

Flop: T [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 3 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

Checked to you, you bet, BB folds, 3 limpers call.

Turn: J [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

Checked to you, you ? and why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bet out. You want those weak limpers calling here with lower spades.

[cassady]

[ QUOTE ]
These all came from the 3 examples in HEPPFAP "Inducing Bluffs" section.

Answers: Check for all three.

1. Check to induce bluff and save a bet if you're behind to better hand.

This should only be done if you think that the player will fold the turn if he a has a worse hand than you, but is capable of betting the river if you show weakness on the turn.

2. Check to avoid being check/raised. You do this to also induce a bet from your opponent on the river (you plan to call or bet if checked to). Also, he may be more inclined to now call a bet on the river even if he can't beat aces here.

3. "If you bet, you may not get any calls. Plus, if the aces is out there, you save money. However, by checking you may induce a bluff, and if you don't induce a bluff, someone who may not have called the turn, may now call the river....If it's checked to you on 5th street, always bet; and, if you now get check/raised, always call unless you're sure your opponents will not raise without the nuts. Remember your check on 4th street may allow opponents to take shots at you when you bet on the river."

OK....let's talk about it. I think these are all pretty good plans....even at 2/4 party. Any comments?

[/ QUOTE ]

You can read my answers below (which I posted before reading your HEPFAP post). I think your arguments may have changed my mind on example 1. I voted for a check for the right reasons on 2. For #3, I aggree with the above posters regarding weak limpers in small stakes games.

[Malificent]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. You hold A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 5 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] in the CO[ QUOTE ]

I bet. It looks like the BB 3 bet may have been blind defense and the bet on the flop was an attempt to drive me off if I had been stealing with not a whole lot. If he checks to me on the turn, I'll bet and fold to a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Think about the range that BB will defend with here. Probably something like Ax/KQ-KTs/AA-77. There are plenty of hands you're ahead of in this range. I think that you will be folding the best hand possibly as much as 20% of the time that he checks the turn and you take a 'bet and fold to a raise' line.

[/ QUOTE ]

So a better line is to bet and call down after a check raise? Or should I just be checking and calling my way to a showdown?

[QTip]

I like what I'm hearing...basically, in 2/4 I was thinking the same things...

I had specified decent opponents in 2/4, so I like taking the books line.

However, in example 3, I do think that in the standard 2/4 games, a bet is definitely better here.

[bakku]

Honestly, HPFAP doesn't apply to today's games anymore. I'd bet in all 3 cases.

[Hoi Polloi]

[ QUOTE ]
If we're talking the Party 2/4...

[/ QUOTE ]

Regarding Hand 2:

[ QUOTE ]
I'm assuming that we're up against the same TAG BB in this hand as well. This one I agree with the book on. I think it's a lot easier to define BB's range of hands here given that he 3-bet the steal raise PF. I think after we determine that range it's pretty obvious that we're in a WA/WB situation. I don't want to be checkraised here regardless of whether he's a tricky player or not. I'm content to see a showdown for 0-1 BBs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I think the WA/WB ratio is a large number here. I would continue to bet expecting long-term (at Party 2/4) to average more than 1 BB from here. I would not fold to a c/r unless I really knew villain's tendencies. I would also be happy if villain folds to my bet.

Regarding Hand 3:

[ QUOTE ]
Party 2/4 players are not waiting until the river to bluff at a 4-card flush on the board. Checking here is again just missing bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

And in the example, nobody bluffed at it. In my experience at Party 2/4 that means the check-through here is often interpreted as "ok, we all agree nobody has a spade so let's continue with the hand." The small spades, of course, are playing "tricky" here. Considering you were the aggressor you'll get more action on the river from small spades and weaker made hands. You may even get raised by a nut without the nuts. Again long-term I think checking your 2nd flush here makes more money.

[ QUOTE ]
In addition to that giving a free card to someone with a set or 2-pair that has been scared to bet because of the monotone board is pretty disasterous.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this will happen once in a blue moon but not so much as to reduce the +EV overall.

My thoughts FWIW. Don't yell at me, Crunch.

[meep_42]

1. Bet for value. If he has a PP or J, he's going to at least call and might check-raise.
2. Check. The pot is small and the villain is likely to give up if behind. However, if you check, you can gain 1 BB when you're ahead and the villain bluffs. Giving a free card when you're likely to get check-raised in a small pot isn't a sin.
3. Check. Your hand is not vulnerable and not much is going to call you here that you beat (the Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] is about it.) Snap off a bluff on the river or only lose 1 to the Ace.

-d

[meep_42]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. You hold A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 5 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] in the CO[ QUOTE ]

I bet. It looks like the BB 3 bet may have been blind defense and the bet on the flop was an attempt to drive me off if I had been stealing with not a whole lot. If he checks to me on the turn, I'll bet and fold to a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
Think about the range that BB will defend with here. Probably something like Ax/KQ-KTs/AA-77. There are plenty of hands you're ahead of in this range. I think that you will be folding the best hand possibly as much as 20% of the time that he checks the turn and you take a 'bet and fold to a raise' line.

[/ QUOTE ]

You also have 6 hidden outs to a split against a non-king kickered Ace.

-d

[Bill C]

I like the idea that you and Flair had, and assume this is in that vein. I have not looked yet at anybody else's answers. Here are mine:

Hand 1: Bet (value bet + no free card)
Hand 2: Bet/fold (WA/WB)
Hand 3: Check; bet river and call one. (Don't want to have to call bluff on turn and then again on river)

This was fun. Hope I got one "right!"

bill c [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[crunchy1]

I won't yell but, IMHO, you're wrong- on both hands. In hand #1 your turn bet will lose you more when behind and less when you're ahead. In hand #2 checking the turn is just plain awful - you're missing bets against smaller flushes and unrespecting pairs that WILL call the turn and river.