The Overuse of the WA/WB line Out of Position - Page 2

cartman · #1 12-19-2005, 05:08 PM

I have never been a fan of the check-call, check-call, bet-fold line with KK or Ax on an Ace high board for a number of reasons. Below are three of them. There are some combinations of conditions which probably make this line optimal, but most of these combinations are rarely present in the online games familiar to most of us. First, we have to be able to trust our opponent to only raise the river with better hands than ours. Second, we have to estimate that he will call our river bet with more hands than he would have bet with if we had checked. Third, we have to believe that he is not only capable but likely to fold worse hands on the flop or the turn if we checkraise or donk when he would have kept betting with them otherwise.

The first one alone is very troublesome to me unless I have a fairly solid read on the opponent. It is a catastrophe to fold the best hand to a river raise. The second reason is also a problem, although it becomes less so as the skill level of our opponent increases. There are countless opponents who will bet every street here with any pair and many who will bet every street with any two cards if they have been shown no resistance after raising preflop. The third reason is similar to the second in that it is problematic against typically poor opponents and becomes more plausible against better ones who are more likely to check behind us on the turn with nothing hands and with pairs they would have paid off with had we checkraised the flop or donked the turn.

Conceptually speaking, I think many people see reference to "way ahead/way behind" and assume that these two scenarios are somewhat equally likely. They are not. In the typical "way ahead/way behind" situation in which we have Ax on an Ace high flop heads up against a preflop raiser, we have the best hand on the flop at least 2/3 of the time almost regardless of our opponents hand preflop hand range! That means we are "way ahead" twice as often as we are "way behind". So the issue of maximizing value when we are ahead far outweighs the issue of saving bets when we are behind.

Basically I think against opponents who can't be trusted to only raise the river with worse hands, when we have Ax or KK on an Ace high board there is usually at least one better line than check-call, check-call, bet-fold. Against opponents who hate to fold heads up and love to play back, I just checkraise the flop and go from there. Versus autobettors I usually either simply check and call every street or with my better kickers check-call the flop and turn and then bet-call the river. In the cases in which my opponent is a solid player I begin to check-call the flop and donk the turn with more frequency.

Cartman

StellarWind · #2 12-19-2005, 05:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
In the cases in which my opponent is a solid player I begin to check-call the flop and donk the turn with more frequency.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would you do this with Ax instead of checkraising the flop and betting the turn?

I'm really having trouble with this question. My right brain really likes the idea of checkcall-bet with hands like this. It feels right and I can't explain why.

My left brain will have none of this. The checkraise is clearly a fat +EV bet so why leave it on the table? Especially when the flop doesn't leave much scope for representing that the turn improved your hand. Villain knows that the hand you bet the turn with is probably the hand you played the flop with. Whether or not you checkraised the flop isn't going to greatly influence his turn play.

Can anyone out there help my right brain explain itself?

cartman · #3 12-19-2005, 05:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Can anyone out there help my right brain explain itself?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am probably unqualified to answer this question because both halves of my brain are left. But I think against solid players I think I get some confusion call downs that would have folded either immediately to a flop checkraise or to my subsequent turn bet. I know I am often like a deer in headlights when I see this line from an opponent that I either know or suspect is a good player.

Cartman

disjunction · #4 12-19-2005, 07:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Can anyone out there help my right brain explain itself?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sounds fun. I'm not advocating this line, merely listing some advantages off the top of my head. Plus I'm not too bright. Others are invited to add to this list.

(1) If the opponent has a hand like TT on an A82 flop, he must put you on a hand and decide whether to continue. If you start to show strength on the turn instead of the flop, your range is more likely to be one he beats (example: the turn may allow you to represent a 4-flush) and he will continue.

(2) Shania, or the converse of the above point. If the turn is a blank, you can now check-call middle pair on the flop and donk the turn occasionally, representing an ace. Now he may fold a hand that has you beat.

(3) The obvious. Your play looks suspicious and may induce a bluff-raise. You'd have to compare this to the amount of bets you expect to get in the pot with the flop check-raise.

Edit: (4) If he has you beat, with AK or something, you may save yourself a half bet vs the villain calling your flop c/r and raising the turn.

StellarWind · #5 12-19-2005, 07:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Edit: (4) If he has you beat, with AK or something, you may save yourself a half bet vs the villain calling your flop c/r and raising the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]
This point I must object to. The core of the left brain argument is that Ax is a big favorite and therefore the extra action contributed by the flop checkraise is +EV. The fact that sometimes Villain has AK and we are losing is already built into that assessment. Raising it again as a separate drawback is analogous to double counting.

disjunction · #6 12-19-2005, 08:26 PM

Fair enough. I was logic-chopping a little different then you. The +EV checkraise is a composite, which is composed of (EV when ahead) + (EV when behind). My idea was to argue you win more when ahead and as a bonus you lose less in the rarer case that you're behind. Whereas you think of it as one +EV flop raise that must be equalled by another line on the big streets in order to be correct.

It's your left brain so I'll defer to your counting system. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

MAxx · #7 12-19-2005, 06:59 PM

For the record, I thought that the "Weak Ace Line" was a type of WA/WB scenario. OR you could say that all Weak Ace Lines are WA/WB scenarios, but not all WA/WB scarios are Weak Aces. Anyway I was thinking that the OP's OP was a picture of a Weak Ace line specifically.

Changeing focus......

I also disagree that the Weak ace line is

cc/cc/bf always... but is rather sometimes cc/cc/bc. This is opponent/situationallly dependant.

StellarWind · #8 12-19-2005, 05:17 PM

Did you know that K [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] has 52.3% pot equity versus random cards on an A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]8 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]2 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] flop?

There is something about the ace and possibly drawing dead that really distorts player's perception of heads up hand values. Ax is a big hand.

flawless_victory · #9 12-19-2005, 06:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to go as far as to say that the WA/WB check/call, check/call, bet line sucks when out of position like another poster did in the "Clarkmeister Theory" thread, but I do think he has a point.

[/ QUOTE ]
i didnt read the whole post, but im just gonna say it sucks.

adamstewart · #10 12-19-2005, 06:27 PM

Sorry guys, haven't been posting in a while so I'm out of date...

What does "WA/WB" stand for? And what is the "WA/WB line."

Adam