Bluff stop-and-go on the bubble

[Benholio]

No, I'm saying that ignoring the flop when deciding to follow through with a stop-n-go is terrible. Why should you confine yourself to rules like "I have to push no matter the flop!" if there might be flops you don't want to push on?

I like the stop-n-go, I just don't agree that it always has to be followed through.

[ZebraAss]

Very interesting discussion. If you were UTG what would you be calling with. Aces with X of spades? 2 pair? Set?
I think if I had A10+ I might call in submission since most of my chips are in the pot but I wouldn't be happy about it, if I call at all.


I am not current on all of the results from the “stop-n-go” strategy so I can’t really say much. But I would imagine that you have to take into consideration what will happen AFTER, if indeed the plan is a success.
#1. you will have gained a heap of chips .
#2. your opponents are likely afraid of you, so you have a TON of momentum during the next few hands.
#3. You can pound away at the big stack while the shorties are fighting to stay alive.

The play is Gold in my book.

-Zebra

[ZebraAss]

About the Stop-n-go...

I agree with Benholio. I dont think there should ever be a spot where you already decided what to do when you could implement an action that better takes into consideration the newly gained information(obviously the flop cards).

[kdotsky]

If you don't push on any flop, it's not a stop and go - you're just betting that particular flop like any other hand. I think you're quite wrong to say that betting the flop no matter what it is is always wrong.

Take this for an example: button raises your big blind. The raise is half your stack. You have 88 and the best hand, but you know it's probably a coinflip. When you reraise there's no chance he's folding. Instead of putting the rest of the money in preflop, put it in on the flop (no matter what it is). This way overcards don't see all 5, and you might even get him to fold a better hand (like if he has 99 and the baord is KJx). If it doesn't work - well, not doing the stop-and-go wouldn't have worked either (pushing preflop and him calling). It's a really effective play.

Of course this particular hand is a little different, and not so obvious. But my point is just that with a "true" stop and go (you're committed, you probably have the best hand, he won't fold preflop, it's probably a coinflip), it is completely right to confine yourself to pushing on *any* flop.

[ZebraAss]

Yes I see that. But another advantage of this "stop-n-go" theory could be that it saves you a considerable amount of chips when the board comes AKQ. You know you can't win...so why bet. Not taking into consideration the flop is absolutely absurd!


From -Adanthar-
[ QUOTE ]
With stop and goes, a lot depends on the flop texture. A raggedy board is OK, a board of KQ9 isn't, etc. I actually prefer a flop of something like Q64 - if he has a Q, oh well, but it discourages 77 from calling.

None of it is very bad, though, as long as you always take the flop texture and your circumstances into account (eg, if it's a terrible flop you still have some FE next time.)

[/ QUOTE ] (From another thread)

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes I see that. But another advantage of this "stop-n-go" theory could be that it saves you a considerable amount of chips when the board comes AKQ. You know you can't win...so why bet. Not taking into consideration the flop is absolutely absurd!

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not absurd. It's the essence of what a stop-and-go is. You use this play when your stack size, the size of the pot preflop, and your cards, make you committed to the pot. You do not make the choice to push every flop, because you don't have a choice about whether to get all your chips in. Your only choice is how and when to do it. Pushing back preflop is one way, but a stop-and-go is better when you want to maximize your folding equity.
In your AKQ flop example, you focus too much on your own cards. True, the flop is very scary for your 88. But, it's just as scary for your opponent's 99 or TT.

Another way to think of it is that the size of the preflop bet relative to your stack is such that calling it will have been a mistake if you ever fold later in the hand.

I think I'm partly responsible for this confusion. My situation isn't really a stop-and-go situation, since I'm not committed to the pot preflop.

[adanthar]

[ QUOTE ]
In your AKQ flop example, you focus too much on your own cards. True, the flop is very scary for your 88. But, it's just as scary for your opponent's 99 or TT.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your opponent has a hand range you should be able to put him on.

It's all well and good if he has TT, but chances are he doesn't.

edit: I'm not saying I mind it here, BTW.

[Benholio]

Whatever you want to call this play, it is definately a bluff. You are putting all of your chips on the line without a hand against a bad player who has shown strength at some point on the hand.

I understand that the point of a stop-n-go is to steal the pot when you don't think your opponent will fold pre-flop, but may fold on the flop. I just think that given the circumstances, you don't need to risk all of your chips on a play like that yet, and that once an ace flops, your success rate isn't going to be high enough to make money.

Since you are on the bubble, and someone is shorter than you, a break-even or slightly +CEV move here will still lose you money.

[ilya]

[ QUOTE ]
You are putting all of your chips on the line without a hand against a bad player


[/ QUOTE ]

I never said he was a bad player. In fact, all I said about him is that he had been playing agressively on the bubble.

[Benholio]

Yep, I know you didn't say he was a bad player... I assumed he was, because there was nothing to tell me otherwise. What % of $22 players are bad players? 80%?