50-100 Vs Solid Pro

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]


We are worried about being suspect but we want to check-raise the flop and check the turn? That is much much more suspect then check-raising the flop, betting the turn and checking the river.



[/ QUOTE ]


Check-raising the Q and then checking to the K isn't suspect, in my opinion, and it would paint a picture he would fall into, all Bob Ross style.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

[Renaud Desferet]

I never advocated to follow through on the river, I just had a quick look at both options.
I did a thorough EV calculation. I just ignored the T or J occurence. This might seem like oversimplifying, but i don't think it favors the semi-bluff or by very little.
I of course assumed he would fold AJ and ATs on the turn.
I assumed he would call the turn with AK and fold unimproved. I think this is the right play, the pot odds are almost there and again it prevents from being run over.
77-88 are trickier.
I assumed first that he played 77-AA plus AJ, ATs, KQ, KJs, KTs, QJs.
When you assume he will call 77-88 on the turn and fold unimproved, a check call approach gives an EV of 0.98 vs 0.72 when semibluffing.
If you assume he will fold 77-88, then you get 0.98 vs 1.18 respectively.
if you get rid of KQo, you find 0.98 vs 0.79 for the first case.
Finally, if you get rid of AJ, KQ, KJs, KTs, JQs and assume 77-88 as folding hands on the turn, you find that EV is 1.07 vs 0.97 (check call vs semibluffing)
Again, what makes the semibluffing so expensive is the likelihood of being raised on the turn. Also, you will sometimes have a free card on the turn when checking calling (I assume you would with AJ and ATs and 77-88 and AK...of course you might disagree)
I hope it helps. I can send you the spreadsheet if you wish.
Nothing is really clear and it is a bit closer than what I expected. What is sure is don't do that against Angelina.

[KdoubleK]

At first I thought this play was rather dubious and that following through on the river for value would probably be your best option. After reviewing other posts though, I think the decision is close. You check the river because you think he will fold AK, AQ, or possibly even AA if he thinks he's beat when you bet out. The river checkraise really indicates serious strength though, and if he's capable of folding these holdings to one river bet, he definately folds to the checkraise. If he has a set, you possibly get 4 bets on the river but more likely 2. Leading out definately gets you 3 against a set. So by leading out, you usually get 1 bet (50%), sometimes get 3 (10%), and sometimes get 0 (40%). By checkraising, you usually get 0 (50%), sometimes get 1 (20%), sometimes get 2 (20%), and sometimes get 4 (10%). These are just approximations of what I think is likely to happen, I don't want to argue them. So overall I think leading out is still the better play since it has the best chance of getting you more money, but the possibility of netting 2 and occasionally 4 bets makes checkraising a risky but +EV play as well, especially considering the metagame benefits. Just my opinion.

[J_V]

So, you shouldn't semi-bluff at 80-160?

[J_V]

Depending on his range of UTG hands, I think semi-bluffing will push him off enough hands to make up for the times you get raised on the turn.

This is a bad board to try to semibluff on though against a solid player. I think it's closer than you do Renaud, because there are players (maybe this guy) that might fold 8-8, 10-10 and J-J as well as AK and AJ. I'm gonna have to think about this one some more.

I'd bet through the river against most opponents. People always seem to fold to my hopeless river bets more than they should, even high-limit pros. The river bet might be the crux of the hand. It makes your opponent's bluff catching more expensive but in this case it's hard to envision him calling the turn and folding the river, unless he is calling the turn assuming you know better than to bluff the river and will fold there. Sklansky advocating this bluff-catch idea in certain spots in Poker, Gaming, and Life.

EDIT: I just read Renaud's second post and it's fantastic, check it out. My intuition was pretty close.

[HiatusOver]

""Sklansky advocated this bluff-catch idea in certain spots in Poker, Gaming, and Life." -JV

Hey bud, just making sure you realize that there are other books out there besides "Poker,Gaming and Life"...I know its your favorite book and all but you seem to work in a reference to it in every thread you get involved in.

[elysium]

hi hi

you may have played it very well post-flop, but this call pre-flop will lose you many chips over the long run. these type calls should never be made. in fact, to get into how you played it post-flop is kind of like the high diver who is instructed not to jump off the highest level diving board because the pool has been drained of half its water, and the water is too shallow for high dive entry, but who doesn't listen and instead says, " no, no just watch. that's all. i just want you to watch. no really. really. watch. the duck. that's all. i'll do the duck. yea.". and he he jumps, and splendidly launches into a rolling reverse back-flip, a forward roll, and as he begins his waddle, asks, "watcha think? good huh. yea. yea. good. watcha think? quack. quack. yea. yea.".

pool's drained; and "pool's drai...", is his final reply. yes indeed.

you played this half-drained holding very dextrously and in good over-all form, however, the concrete of the long run is epic, and fleeting style and form ephemeral; your best jackknife is still no match for the bottom of the pool. without correct odds of water for the height of the dive, your form and style will pale in significance to the hard character of the concrete at pool bottom. shallow enough, and just standing on the platform not diving takes the trophy, while even flawless dives are disqualified at the point of the decision of the diver to jump. in this hand, your poor starters have made a pre-flop muck a more deft and formidable display of the precision of your ability than a river check-raise with the nuts. the player who mucks this hand pre-flop will elegantly emerge from the water without ever having tasted concrete; but over the long run, the check-raiser with this hand, though he's check-raising with the nuts will, well, grisley shallowy splash shall maketh he. and flat. yea. yea. just like flat. over the long run. you know? yea. yea. really. no come-upeth. like drai....you know?

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
yea. yea. good. watcha think? quack. quack.

[/ QUOTE ]


Priceless.

There will come a time in the coming weeks where I blatantly rip off this analogy. Hopefully it won't be on 2+2, for that would be embarassing.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com

[J_V]

It's the only book I've ever readan also my favorite.

I like your moxy kid but just remember where you came from, otherwise I might post your first JV PM.

Good luck,

JV

[Lawrence Ng]

[ QUOTE ]
Renaud, you should post more.

[/ QUOTE ]

PwNed at the hands of El Sarcasmio.... [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Lawrence