Two Flop Bets w/ Not Much

[shant]

I cross-posted this in Small Stakes so avoid that thread if you want to analyze these hands fresh.

Party 1/2 Full

Assume the reads here are the player in the SB is decent as far as tightness and aggression goes, and the players who limped are slightly looser and average as far as postflop aggression goes.

Hand 1:

Some folds, EP limp, more folds, CO limp, SB completes, I check in the BB with 7[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].

Flop: 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="blue">(4 SB)</font>
SB checks, I bet

-----------------------------------------

Hand 2:

Some folds, MP limp, more folds, SB completes, I check in the BB with T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].

Flop: 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] <font color="blue">(3 SB)</font>

SB checks, I bet

Thoughts?

I make both of those bets, what's more interesting is what happens after your bets.

[Koss]

I like them both. Hand 1 is an obvious value bet with middle pair on a ragged board. Later streets could get tough.

In the 2nd hand I would like some information that MP is not a habitual overcard chaser. A good semi-bluff here. All 10 outs are probably good here, plus the BDFD. I'd bet a ragged flop with a lot less here.

[MrWookie47]

I definitely like the first hand.

The second hand is tough for me. I don't think I value my overcards in this scenario enough (simply because they don't have pretty pictures on them), so consequently, my gut reaction is that you don't have enough of a draw to make your semibluff all that semi (all bluff instead). However, you can arguably give yourself 7 outs here, and you may get some folds. OTOH, on ragged boards like this, though, you'll get more people calling with a couple of overcards. Oh, wait, the same read applies to both hands? I like this one too, then. A reasonably aggressive player would probably bet this flop with just about anything he'd call with. He likely has overcards, but any overcards he'd be excited about holding he would have raised preflop. That leaves MP, and this is a board that's unlikely to have hit him. He may peel w/ an A, but I think you'll fold him or hit something often enough to make this +EV.

Edit: I missed the BDFD. This is an even better semibluff.

[milesdyson]

1: yeah, good bet. what do you do if both players behind you call and the turn card is a, uh, J?

2: i like it. it's short enough that you can win the pot often, and i think betting this flop increases your implied odds on your gutshot (as well as perhaps buying outs and folding better hands).

[bottomset]

both are standard and good bets

[Stealthy]

I actually prefer the 2nd hand to the first! I have played a ton of these 1st hands as most players have. Middle pair/no kicker in a small pot. All too often you end up putting a lot of bets in with a very vulnerable hand. If they could all fold if empty on the flop then yes I fire. However as a large number of $1 $2 players will take one off with even just one over then I will be forced to fire again on the turn when I could be far behind. Hand 1 I will sometimes bet out but also like to check and see, I will fold to an EP bet if CO folds as I don't really want to see an 8 here as it sets up too many re-draws. EP bet, CO call I will take one off for the odds but tread a little carefull if I hit an 8. If it is checked to the CO I will often check-raise him here and try and get it heads up and value bet it the rest of the way. So to sum up, I will only put bets in if I can get it heads up or improve.

Hand 2 I like more. I bet this nearly every time and will fire again on the turn whatever hits hoping to take it down by then. If they are still there on the river and I am still looking at a ten high then I give it up.

[kapw7]

I'm not playing 1/2 full so I might be wrong but I suppose it's a game where ppl tend to call a lot. So I don't like any of them as a standard 100% times play. It would change to correct if one of these conditions were met. 1. Higher limits (5/10 or higher) 2. Less opponents 3. Better reads

[jaxUp]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Higher limits (5/10 or higher)

[/ QUOTE ]

From his reads, this table seems to be playing like a higher limit table. the limit is not what's important, but the play.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Less opponents

[/ QUOTE ]

Hand 2 has 2 opponents....doesn't get much less than that. Hand 1 does have 3 opponents, but in that hand we also have a stronger holding after the flop. If the number of players to flop were switched, then I think you would probably be right.

[ QUOTE ]
3. Better reads

[/ QUOTE ]
These reads are not the best. However, we do know that the players are tightish - slightly looseish,and none of them are too aggressive. This will make a turn laydown pretty easy vs aggression UI.

Overall, I like both hands and play them the same regularly against this cast of characters.

:grunch: I like hand 2 more than hand 1 because you are up against less players (2 in hand 2, 3 in hand 1) meaning you are more likely to win the pot with the bet, and your outs are better (less likely to have tainted outs) in hand 2 with overs, inside str, bd flush versus bd str, 2 7's, 3 6's (which can help someone's str draw).