Different styles for BB defens

[waffle]

[ QUOTE ]

But when we check and get the bet, opponent will have correct odds to draw to his overcards on the Turn. Our CR may get extra money in the pot, but it does not force our opponent to make a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. If he knew your cards, then his betting the flop is a mistake, and his betting the flop when he knows you will raise is even more of a mistake. You have forced him to put in 2SB to look at the turn. If you bet out and he calls, you have forced him to put in 1SB to look at the turn. You are getting more money in when you have an equity advantage, and decreasing his effective odds on the flop, making it more expensive to draw to overs.

Sure, calling the check/raise after it has happened is not a mistake, but betting with the worse hand when he knows you are going to raise is the mistake we are inducing here.

[chief444]

I don't really mind if someone makes two seemingly/general correct plays on the flop that in reality are one big mistake.

[Festis]

If we talk about tuff games you clearly can't play it the same every time. So you have to use both cheakraise and betting out.
I figure one way to know when to do witch is to cheackraise those times he is less likely to draw out on you at the turn.
Exept the real strong hands this aply when you are likly to hold one of his outs.
So say you get raised in BB and call with A7s or K7s and the flope commes 7 high. Now it aint bad to go to the turn against a Ace or King hand.
Say you hold two low cards at the same flop say 97s. Know you want to chose the option that make him fold the flop the most, betting out.

This line is pretty easy to play by, but do you think it is a good line?

[naphand]

[ QUOTE ]
Checking is SOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say it is SOP and it is my default line is to CR in these spots, but it should be clear from the above that if opponent has the correct odds to draw you are not taking any money off him. No matter how much money you put in on the flop, as long as opponent is drawing correctly he is not losing money. With only two involved in the pot and opponent is not losing money, that does not leave a lot of people to choose from who are on the losing side?

I believe there is room to go beyond SOP if we want to becomes skilled poker players. Clearly in a very small pot, bet-bet is the most EV line on a money invested/returned basis.

Putting in any number of bets against flush draw while you are ahead but opponent is drawing correctly, who is making the money? We need to think about this. If our CR is not forcing opponent into a mistake, we need another reason/s to bet this way and simply stating you should be "getting the money in while you are ahead" is quite superficial. Putting money in when you get an equal share back (less rake) is not +EV is it? What do the extra bets achieve apart from bloating the pot, let's hear some solid reasoning.

One argument is a CR convinces opponent that his overcards are no good to draw to, and he folds on the Turn unimproved. Do we use this line as a bluff re-steal? If opponent will certainly see the Turn then surely we are better getting bets in on that street when there is just one card to come and the bets are twice the size, unless we feel there is a chance he folds the flop? The question is where is the value? where does opponent fold? how does he/we respond to a raise on which street?

If opponents standard line is to raise the flop, bet the Turn then it gets more money in the pot to bet-call the flop and CR the Turn, or check-call the flop and CR the Turn. It is quite likely that CR the flop gets less money from an opponent who wants to see the River.

[waffle]

You raise PF, I call in the BB. You have overcards, I have top pair. I tip the dealer to look the other way and bet 2 SB. If you call this, drawing to overcards, are you making a mistake?

[naphand]

Absolutely. I was going to suggest that the CR is a good line when your opponent is likely drawing to just 1 overcard. If your opponent is likely to raise your flop bet, you could also argue that a bet-3-bet line is better when he has only 1 card to draw to. A more pasive opponent you should CR, more aggressive go for the 3-bet.

These spots require good judgement of opponent and consideration of the board.

With regard to the CR, as cartman says, it may make playing the rest of the hand easier. If opponent takes it seriously and only raises the Turn after a CR when you are seriously beat then it helps a lot and saves 1 SB when you are behind or drawn out on the Turn.

[chief444]

[ QUOTE ]
but it should be clear from the above that if opponent has the correct odds to draw you are not taking any money off him. No matter how much money you put in on the flop, as long as opponent is drawing correctly he is not losing money.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're thinking is flawed. For one thing, just because your opponent has correct odds to call doesn't mean you aren't making money on the bet and call. It just means you would make more money if he folds. For another thing, if your opponent puts 2sb's in on the flop to win a 8 sb pot, but he's only catching an out on the turn 13% or so of the time, he is making a mistake. It doesn't matter if he puts the money in one bet at a time or not.

[naphand]

I think you need to revisit TOP.

You can disagree with math all you like, but the math is correct. The flop bet after a PFR is +EV, of course he does NOT know you will raise, this is utterly moot. It is a mistake in terms of the Fundamental Theory of Poker but in a practical sense, betting the flop is correct. Calling the raise is not "even more of a mistake", it is correct to call the raise with correct odds. In poker decisions are taken one at a time and lumping all flop bets into one big bet is wrong thinking. It is wrong because that is not how limit poker is played. It does not matter how expensive you make it to draw when you can only do this one increment at a time (obviously different in NL or PL, but those games also have negative implied odds), as long as opponent is drawing correctly he is not losing money, which means you are.

Can we try to keep this discussion practical? I really do not want to get into "well, if opponent could see your cards...blah blah". We are not talking about players with X-ray vision or even one hand in isolation, but a strategy that applies to many hands and which must counter apparently correct actions by our opponent.

[naphand]

[ QUOTE ]
You're thinking is flawed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh really, well I am glad we cleared that up. Perhaps you could take this line of argument up with Mr. Sklansky?

If your opponent has correct odds to call, it means he is in a +EV situation when he calls. In a HU pot when one player has a +EV bet or call, where is that EV coming from? How can both players be in a +EV situation? If you can find a game like this then please let me know.

[ QUOTE ]
...just because your opponent has correct odds to call doesn't mean you aren't making money on the bet and call.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is exactly what it means.

Jeezaz, I don't know why I bothered posting again. Perhaps it is better to stick to e-mail discussions, at least that way I don't have to answer posts as desperately stultifying as this one.

[Wynton]

This discussion is probably over my head, but it actually sounds like you guys are agreeing in practice, just disagreeing about the theory.

Doesn't everyone agree that there are times when it makes sense to bet, despite that the opponent might be correct to call?