Ace-Ten vs. solid player - Page 3

LoaferGee12 · #21 03-07-2005, 06:47 PM

Well you're pot equity is higher verse a flush draw and the only way you make money from him is on flop or turn. I'm not talking about playing aggressive to fold the other player. I'm talking about making him pay for staying in as well as not giving free cards. However, I just realized I for some reason thought that there was a Ten on board. This changes my view completely as the only hand that we would miss bets on is a FD and that would still be cutting it close.

Entity · #22 03-07-2005, 06:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Well you're pot equity is higher verse a flush draw and the only way you make money from him is on flop or turn. I'm not talking about playing aggressive to fold the other player. I'm talking about making him pay for staying in as well as not giving free cards. However, I just realized I for some reason thought that there was a Ten on board. This changes my view completely as the only hand that we would miss bets on is a FD and that would still be cutting it close.

[/ QUOTE ]

Against his range of hands, though (which certainly include KdQd but also include ATs-AK, KQ, 99-AA), if we find our opponent giving us multiple bets on this flop, are we really happy?

Rob

LoaferGee12 · #23 03-07-2005, 06:51 PM

True. I knew you'd prove me wrong that's half the reason I put it out there. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

droolie · #24 03-07-2005, 06:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
True. I knew you'd prove me wrong that's half the reason I put it out there. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

You're going places with that kind of attitude. Keep it up!

waynethetrain · #25 03-07-2005, 07:04 PM

Not sure I understand the logic of your line. Please take a moment to explain it to me because I'm sure there's something important for me to learn here.

If you don't bet, you will often find yourself calling down with a loser (vs AK - AJ) and then possibly even getting raised on your suggested turn bet.

If you bet and don't get raised, it's not costing any more to play out the hand than if you check call it down (assuming you lose) and you can win as much. If you do get raised, I think you can be fairly certain you are beat with just a T kicker against most decent players that raised pre-flop.

The only potential downside is winning the pot right there with your bet instead of milking it a little if you are best. However, I rarely consider winning right there to be a negative unless I am pretty sure I am ahead and my opponent doesn't have many outs.

I would think the information gained from betting and avoiding calling down a dominated loser (even if it wins immediately) is just as valuable and milking a few bets (and occasionally allowing a losing hand to beat you on a draw out)

Entity · #26 03-07-2005, 07:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure I understand the logic of your line. Please take a moment to explain it to me because I'm sure there's something important for me to learn here.

If you don't bet, you will often find yourself calling down with a loser (vs AK - AJ) and then possible even getting raised on your suggested turn bet.

If you bet and don't get raised, it's not costing any more to play out the hand than if you check call it down (assuming you lose) and you can win as much. If you do get raised, I think you can be fairly certain you are beat with just a T kicker against most decent players that raised pre-flop.

The only potential downside is winning the pot right there with your bet instead of milking it a little if you are best. However, I rarely consider winning right there to be a negative unless I am pretty sure I am ahead and my opponent doesn't have many outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

The line attempts to get the most out of a hand like KK-99, and lose the least from hands that are crushing you.

If you think the player you are up against is passive enough that he would call with a worse hand (never raise it), then betting is fine. But few opponents play this way. You'll get raised a dumb amount of time with KK and QQ and JJ by opponents who want to "test" you or "charge you" to draw to diamonds, etc. So sans a perfect read, you can't plan on bet-folding this every single time, as you'll be throwing away the best hand enough to constitute a small problem.

So, what do you want? Well, you want one bet on each street. Giving a free card isn't bad because if your opponent is behind, he'll likely be behind at the river.

So you check. He bets -- what does this mean? Well, it means he still likes his hand, but he'd still bet an overpair here since there's no reason for him to expect you to have an Ace.

So you call. Then on the turn, you check, and you call. On the river, he'll check behind with hands that you beat, though, and will very rarely raise you with a hand that you're beating. So you bet.

You will often get to a showdown for 2.5BB with a reasonable chance of holding the best hand.

I don't recommend this line all the time, but it's often the best line in tricky OOP situations like this. The line needs to be altered when you have a read, but when you don't, you would like to see a showdown, you'd like to see what hand your opponent has, etc.

On this particular river, I would actually probably check and call again, considering I'm really narrowing it down to JJ and TT and A8s/A9s that I'm ahead of. I'd like to get a read, I don't want to be raised (because my hand isn't good enough against a river raise).

Rob

cold_cash · #27 03-07-2005, 07:16 PM

If our hero is up against a better hand, AK AQ AA, etc., betting out is only going to cause him to lose more money.

If our hero is up against a worse hand, KK QQ JJ, etc., betting out might simply cause the villian to fold. If he checks, however, the villian will often times keep betting hoping he either has the best hand, or that our hero is on a draw and might fold. He will also be hoping for a free showdown if the hand gets that far.

Let's say you're the villian, and you have KK here. You bet the flop and are called. You think, "Well, he might be drawing, so I'll bet the turn to avoid giving him a free card. If he calls there, I'll check behind on the river because he won't call me with a busted draw, and if he has an Ace I'm losing anyway." When you take this line, it sucks when your opponent bets the river when a blank comes off.

All the micro-guys should be familiar with this line when in this situation. If you're not, or if you haven't really thought about it, think about it.

GrunchCan · #28 03-07-2005, 07:18 PM

Nicely said, Entity.

Every micros poster & lurker should mark this thread as a favorite. This is a bread & butter play that you simply must understand.

droolie · #29 03-07-2005, 07:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Not sure I understand the logic of your line. Please take a moment to explain it to me because I'm sure there's something important for me to learn here.

If you don't bet, you will often find yourself calling down with a loser (vs AK - AJ) and then possible even getting raised on your suggested turn bet.

If you bet and don't get raised, it's not costing any more to play out the hand than if you check call it down (assuming you lose) and you can win as much. If you do get raised, I think you can be fairly certain you are beat with just a T kicker against most decent players that raised pre-flop.

The only potential downside is winning the pot right there with your bet instead of milking it a little if you are best. However, I rarely consider winning right there to be a negative unless I am pretty sure I am ahead and my opponent doesn't have many outs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me take a crack at this (though entity will surely have replied before this gets on the thread [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img])....

We are hoping CO has a hand we beat but we are probably > 50% likely to win the hand. We want to get this hand to showdown due the odds we are getting from the size of the pot and we have the ability to control how much it will cost to do this because the hand is HU. We don't want to make KK or KQ fold before the river. We also can't really get any info through betting because players do all sorts of wacky thing HU to try to win the pot. We therefore set or line from the start and care very little about the results of this one hand. It's more about having an approach that will show longterm profits.

When we check/call we are hoping villian is betting with something we beat. (Many players will bet KK in this spot. If we are ahead we are unlikely to be drawn out on by only one player who is likely drawing to 2 outs)

We repeat the check/call on the turn because villian will almost surely try again to win the pot. When the river comes he is likely to check through if he has a hand we beat. If he has KK he will worry you have Ax and check it through. By betting we don't allow him to do that. Since we would have called a bet had we checked the river betting is better because villian never gets to choose a cheap showdown with a marginal hand. If he has a hand that beats us but is not a monster he will likely call. Even if he beats you with something like AK it takes a special kind of player to raise with only top pair when you bet into him the river. Most players will just call. If they raise you have a choice; if he's capable of raising with a hand you beat call the raise, if not fold to the raise.

waynethetrain · #30 03-07-2005, 07:25 PM

I want to make sure I understand this clearly.

This line really only makes sense when you are heads up and are really not sure where you stand (like with a mediocre kicker).