|
|
#51
08-23-2005, 02:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
My Conclusion.
I am more content with the discussion that transpired today, even if the majority think I am wrong. I only singled you out, because I had to respond to someone - don't take offense.
I misunderstood what you mean by the check, but someone that tight preflop will be betting the turn with anything, even JJ. A check on the turn would then make it very difficult for me as I would be tempted to simply call. To address Guy, I think a donkbet on the river is the worst option of all. If he has as strong a hand as I suspect he does, I will get raised, be forced to fold and sit there wondering why didnt I just call. Against this sort of player I would never donkbet the river - suicide, as he will go into call down mode with a worse hand right on the turn. For the others who say, I have seen too much crazy [censored] from "passive players". Well, I got quite a bit of hands logged in the past few months, believe me I know what you mean. Sometimes I just want to toss gametime into the trash, because it has mislead and confused me. Of course no one is 100% certain about anything, otherwise 2+2 would not exist. If we could all get certain decisions, poker would be formulaic and not be poker. However we need to strive to pick out situations which do not resemble a typical scenario and see if we can win or save 1bb more. As Kiddo correctly pointed out, this will be the difference in earn and that is what everyone on this board is trying to achieve. I know I am defending my position, I sort of have to, but by no means am I actually convinced that it is the right move. Hence I brought it out for discussion...I am now trying to determine if there can be a more meaningful gauging system to quantify how successful these moves are. Currently, my only solution is to leave party and find a smaller site where I can form closer to 100% reads. That way these kind of decisions will not leave me second guessing myself. Anyway, good thread and I liked the input from everyone. 
|
|
#53
08-23-2005, 02:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Crazy thing I almost never do against a LAP
Check raising the flop and leading the turn only to get raised is going to cost us the same (as he will 3-bet that flop with the hands that I think he has). So we have accomplished very little.
Raising the flop for information is another generic and imo often incorrect approach to determine information. In these mid-limit 6max games, people don't care about the flop. My response to donk-betting in the previous thread was a general sentiment about donkbets into PFRs. I said they are annoying, give me heart problems, but never did I question their effectiveness. I think it is a great tool to curb people's aggression. If I know that BB donkbets me 80% of the time, believe I will think twice about stealing with the usual Ax/suited rags/etc.
|
|
#55
08-23-2005, 02:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Crazy thing I almost never do against a LAP
[ QUOTE ]
I also hate this. If you are going to bet/fold the turn, why not just call down? I think you will be good enough times to see a showdown here plus the chances of improving on the river & getting extra bets from an AK or AA on the river when you do hit. [/ QUOTE ] In July's 2+2 magazine, Drew Pruitt writes [ QUOTE ] After seeing someone raise the turn, then fold to a 3-bet, some players will make comments like "For the same two bets you can see a showdown." This shows a lack of understanding where profit comes from when playing a hand in poker. [/ QUOTE ] Granted, his discussion is regarding river play, but I think this same concept works here. Hero is betting into a passive player for value. If he's raised he's almost certainly beat.
|
|
#57
08-23-2005, 03:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Crazy thing I almost never do against a LAP
I think your line is fine since you have a read and are going with it. It is the equivalent of the WA/WB line of c/c, c/c, bet, except you are betting one street earlier. The purpose of the river donkbet is usually to scare the other player with the presumably better hand into calling and to get a call from worse hands thereby winning more and losing less. People are much less likely to raise the river without a monster, content to go to showdown. With your read you can donk the turn because this has the same effect - he won't raise without a monster, but he will still call you down. You're not winning less than you would have, and don't have to call the turn if you're behind.
|
|
#58
08-23-2005, 03:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Crazy thing I almost never do against a LAP
[ QUOTE ]
I think your line is fine since you have a read and are going with it. It is the equivalent of the WA/WB line of c/c, c/c, bet, except you are betting one street earlier. The purpose of the river donkbet is usually to scare the other player with the presumably better hand into calling and to get a call from worse hands thereby winning more and losing less. People are much less likely to raise the river without a monster, content to go to showdown. With your read you can donk the turn because this has the same effect - he won't raise without a monster, but he will still call you down. You're not winning less than you would have, and don't have to call the turn if you're behind. [/ QUOTE ] If you're HU in position and you think a good player is going for the c/c, c/c, b/f line, wouldn't it make sense to bluff him on the river? It need only work a small percentage of the time to make this move profitable.
|
|
#60
08-23-2005, 04:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: My Conclusion.
I think an important thing here is that your line can be correct even if it's possible that you were winning here and folded the best hand. Yes, sometimes crazy things happen and the guy who never bluffs bluffs but poker is all about odds, not about 100% certainty. If he only bluffs here 1 time in 20 or 1 time in 10, that's fine you can still fold and it either still saves you money or costs you very little.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
