Way ahead or way behind?

[SomethingClever]

Anyone see merit in donkbetting the turn (with the intent to 3-bet?)

Edit: Didn't notice the "...or way behind" portion of the title.

[magithighs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With no draws on the flop I decided I would get more value from the hand if I was ahead by allowing him to bluff at me, and save bets if I was behind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know this makes sense on some sort of level, and I've noticed many more players going with this strategy. However, I absolutely hate the thinking "I could be way ahead or way behind, calling strategy". We didn't get to mid level by not being able to read players and will never get to a higher level by going with this strategy. So, what - you pick off a bluff or lose less bets. Playing against you becomes much more easy when you're on this line. Yes, this is my rant, because I'm the one who's been caught bluffing a few times, because of this new line from reasonably aggressive players. But, there really should be a good reason for calling when you're in position with top-pair great kicker.

Personally, I would pop the turn or the river if I called the flop.

Cheers
Magi

[/ QUOTE ]

The key is that she is NOT in position. And no, you don't become easier to play against with this line, it becomes harder; your opponent can never tell if you are drawing and when you are drawing they might start giving you free cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right about the position -- my bad. I always wanted to chat about this line, so I hope you'll indulge me.

I really believe it makes one easy to play against when taking this line. Given a reasonable opponent, if you are ahead, you're opponent IS drawing. They are either drawing to three outs on the K or two outs to match their pocket, or may have a Jack of diamonds drawing to the flush. Letting them make their draw while they have a chance at winning the pot (in their mind) by bluffing, is bad, IMO.

It does become easier to play against, IMO. As an opponent of the check-call, I'm in control and can bet according to my hand. Yes, I don't know where my opponent is in the hand, but I can make a reasonble estimate. I can check the flop with a set or overpair and pop the turn or, I can check the flop, call the turn and pop the river if I feel you will bail on the turn. So many options as an opponent, and the check-call line, offers you no insight into the play of your opponent.

We have pokertracker, Caro tells, 100 of thousands (likely millions) hands of experience. And, the best we can come up with is check-call.

I totally understand the rationelle for the check-call line, but I think we have way too much experience to settle for that line.

Cheers
Magi

[rigoletto]

All you are really saying is that this line is lackluster and boring. If you want a more interesting pokerlife go ahead and make the moves. If you want to maximize EV you sometimes have to play passively (something that seems to have very little apreciation on this board).

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
We have pokertracker, Caro tells, 100 of thousands (likely millions) hands of experience. And, the best we can come up with is check-call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the question that should be answered is when is one line of play higher EV than another line of play. You advocate a more aggressive line of play and I'd suggest that yes there are opponents that'd you'd be bettor off taking the more aggressive line of play against. Clearly though the "rope-a-dope" line of play is better against certain opponents. Also it depends on how your opponents perceive you. BTW I would tend to take a more aggressive line of play with the AQ myself.

[pokerjo22]

Just to make sure I understand why, its because I'll miss a bet if he checks his AK or JJ etc? What if I get raised?

[pokerjo22]

[ QUOTE ]
We didn't get to mid level by not being able to read players and will never get to a higher level by going with this strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this strategy becomes more not less prevalent at the higher limits, at least in my limited experience. Partly because your opponent is doing more to disguise the strength of their own hand. A 'raise for information' gets you less information when your opponent is capable of semi-bluff reraises etc.

[pokerjo22]

[ QUOTE ]
Given a reasonable opponent, if you are ahead, you're opponent IS drawing. They are either drawing to three outs on the K or two outs to match their pocket, or may have a Jack of diamonds drawing to the flush. Letting them make their draw while they have a chance at winning the pot (in their mind) by bluffing, is bad, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really, you're just allowing them to make more mistakes. They ARE drawing, but they are drawing thin and with insufficient pot odds. For every dollar they put in, you have a massive overlay. If you raise, they can make a correct fold and you lose the opportunity to make money.

[Ulysses]

IMO, if you are someone who bets and raises a lot, throwing in check-call lines in certain spots is great, since you can count on your opponent bluffing and value-betting w/ worse hands (that may or may not have called bets) at far more than optimal frequencies.

[stoxtrader]

the hand is well played, and the river is close. I don't think a bet is mandatory. Against an overaggressive player, betting the river is probably a mistake. Against a tight/passive player I like the bet.

the hand is nicely played.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to make sure I understand why, its because I'll miss a bet if he checks his AK or JJ etc? What if I get raised?

[/ QUOTE ]

since he's so unlikely to raise unless your beat you can fold easily for the same bet that would have cost you to call the river if he bets.

and you gain the bet when you're ahead and he checks.

hes not folding a better hand.

this is bad, however, when he'll alwyas check behind even with his KK/AA and instead you force a bet in there artificially

the backdoor flush getting there will make him call even hands hed want to raise for fear of a 3 bet with his 1 pair hands (not counting the paired board)

-Barron