Playing for a Specific Outcome Article (Question for Ed)

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ed,

I'd win $60 to $80 extra if I checked. If he had exactly an ace, I stood to make possibly $820 to $840 extra by betting.

You are talking about a $250ish pot here, right? And you're saying a $900 bet into that pot is significantly more likely to be called than a checkraise all-in. I don't really understand what type of hand ranges you're talking about here. You mention a flush draw as one hand that might call the $900 bet. So, you're saying that a guy is maybe gonna call a $900 bet into a $250 pot w/ a flush draw (or just an Ace as you mention above), but he is going to fold if you checkraise? This doesn't make sense to me. I suspect I might be overlooking something simple here, because the premise as described doesn't make logical sense to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I forced the example a bit. I wish I'd used a different example to make the point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note that I edited my post and added another point. I think that's an important point to address, as whether he's going to bet $60 to $80 or $200 to $250 when he has a real hand needs to be a consideration in your plan.

[barongreenback]

I think this example along similar lines to your point would make for interesting discussion.

Checking behind with a nut draw even though a semibluff would have a very high chance of success because more money can be made by keeping hands in and hitting. A kind of slowplay with the worse hand. There can be other reasons to check (checkraise threat) but it may work without these.

I don't know how often this occurs in practice but it gives a good indication of the differences between limit and big bet.

James