2+2'er gets pwned trying to slowplay (marginal content)

[Duerig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I thought you don't always need the best hand to bet for value.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's hard to have a hand good enough to bet/raise for value with only one opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]

... when you've been 3bet preflop, correct? Otherwise A high + flush draw + gutshot could well be the best hand vs 1 opponent.

[bottomset]

secondary lesson, if you plan on trying to show up a fellow 2+2er make sure you played the hand correctly

[Greg J]

This is not a value bet, it's a semi bluff. (Or it should be considered that.) I actually disagree wtih Entity here -- I think betting is fine, and better than check calling becuase it gives you another way to win the hand: villian folding. I may change my mind if I get a clearer argument, but I have yet to be convinced.

[Greg J]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that a better hand will almost never fold to a flop bet and then you have to invest another bet on the turn to see if he has one of those hands that will go away.

[/ QUOTE ]
Very true. But if villian WILL fold here sometimes (if only rarely), this play is still theoretically far superior to checking and calling.

[walkdoc]

I don't understand how this is not protecting his hand. He actually has about 19 outs. 3 Aces, 9 other clubs, 4 queens ( he didn't know villain had 2 of them) and 3 tens for 2 pair or trips.
Maybe I'm missing something very basic about protecting a hand, but this seems like a monster drawing hand! I'll re-read draws and protecting draws again tonite, but I agree with the poster. IMHO, and my in my drastically non-expert opinion, I don't see anything wrong with what he did. Nice hand!
walkdoc

[Greg J]

Betting this flop does not commit him to betting the turn here. If there is ANY chance betting this flop makes villian fold, then it becomes a much better play than checking and calling. This, however, assumes there is no raise. But villian raising then allows a checkraise by scotty if he improves to one of his many outs (12 is it?).

Sorry Rob, I might be wrong but I like the flop bet here. Convince me.

[walkdoc]

[ QUOTE ]
Well so I guess the 2+2'er who got pwned was me in this marginal content post. I'm glad I posted it though now, as it may have just fixed a leak in my game (albeit, a very minor leak).

[/ QUOTE ]

What the heck is pwned? I can't find it in the abbreviations on the FAQ list. Sorry for my ignorance.
Sincerely;
Walkdoc

[scotty34]

lol, see my post below

[scotty34]

pwned is the gamer geek's way of spelling owned. there are many theories to where this came from, something to do with p and o being side by side and counterstrike. people on this forum say it jokingly all the time now.

[scotty34]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand how this is not protecting his hand. He actually has about 19 outs. 3 Aces, 9 other clubs, 4 queens ( he didn't know villain had 2 of them) and 3 tens for 2 pair or trips.
Maybe I'm missing something very basic about protecting a hand, but this seems like a monster drawing hand! I'll re-read draws and protecting draws again tonite, but I agree with the poster. IMHO, and my in my drastically non-expert opinion, I don't see anything wrong with what he did. Nice hand!
walkdoc

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, well given that I was 3-bet PF by someone I thought was a 2+2'er in MP, I have to assume that he has a hand here. I would say 99+, or AQs+. This significantly reduces many of those outs as with this flop I would be dominated even by hitting several of those outs. I can't assume my A's are clean unless he has QQ, 99 or TT. There are the 9 clubs + 3 queens (one queen is a club) for my 12 totally clean outs to the nuts (and in this case he still had a redraw on me for the boat). If I hit one of my 3 T's, I can't assume I'm good against anything except for 99.

I have 12 totally clean outs, and the rest are discounted to little or no value.