AJs--this hand sucked

[Transference]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand the principle that the more I have a chance to outdraw villain, the more likely I should be to bet. But there's also the principle that it's good to bet when you are able to fold to the raise, right? When you bet, and know if you're raised that you're behind, yet you still have to call, that's an incentive to check, no?



[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the correct move depends on what you estimate your fold equity to be. Im thinking it would be marginally more important than the probability of being c/r because you may win the whole pot.

[imported_leader]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is, if I bet the turn, and he raises (probably meaning a Q or K), then I still have 7 outs, and I have to call because I'm now getting 8:1 on my call.

I'm wondering if this is a situation where I should "tend to check with outs, bet with no outs".

M

[/ QUOTE ]
The saying is the other way around I believe. When you bet with outs you have to win the pot right there less to make a profit because you can improve on the river even if he calls. Without outs, like a PP, you should tend to check if you are unsure were you are in order to ensure a 1BB showdown and induce river bluffs. Of course you have to weigh that against protecting you hand from a free card.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been looking in TOP and I'm really trying to find this quote.

I understand the principle that the more I have a chance to outdraw villain, the more likely I should be to bet. But there's also the principle that it's good to bet when you are able to fold to the raise, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

That has to with more then just outs thou. It also has to do with whether you can be sure your folding the worst hand.

[ QUOTE ]
When you bet, and know if you're raised that you're behind, yet you still have to call, that's an incentive to check, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm mainly talking about here is when you have the choice between checking thou and taking a free river or betting. There's a lot of CR bluffing the turn in 6m. This has more of an effect on weak made hands then on draws. Obviously, if you are likely to face a CR that should deter you from betting if you don't have a strong hand. It should however deter you more from raising weak made hand because you could be bluffed off the best hand for the same price as just seeing a showdown. For example say you JJ in this hand, I think this would good spot to check thou because SB likely has you beat or is drawing really thin.

[Megenoita]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is, if I bet the turn, and he raises (probably meaning a Q or K), then I still have 7 outs, and I have to call because I'm now getting 8:1 on my call.

I'm wondering if this is a situation where I should "tend to check with outs, bet with no outs".

M

[/ QUOTE ]
The saying is the other way around I believe. When you bet with outs you have to win the pot right there less to make a profit because you can improve on the river even if he calls. Without outs, like a PP, you should tend to check if you are unsure were you are in order to ensure a 1BB showdown and induce river bluffs. Of course you have to weigh that against protecting you hand from a free card.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been looking in TOP and I'm really trying to find this quote.

I understand the principle that the more I have a chance to outdraw villain, the more likely I should be to bet. But there's also the principle that it's good to bet when you are able to fold to the raise, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

That has to with more then just outs thou. It also has to do with whether you can be sure your folding the worst hand.

[ QUOTE ]
When you bet, and know if you're raised that you're behind, yet you still have to call, that's an incentive to check, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm mainly talking about here is when you have the choice between checking thou and taking a free river or betting. There's a lot of CR bluffing the turn in 6m. This has more of an effect on weak made hands then on draws. Obviously, if you are likely to face a CR that should deter you from betting if you don't have a strong hand. It should however deter you more from raising weak made hand because you could be bluffed off the best hand for the same price as just seeing a showdown. For example say you JJ in this hand, I think this would good spot to check thou because SB likely has you beat or is drawing really thin.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see that point, and agree.

[ddubois]

[ QUOTE ]
The saying is the other way around I believe.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've never been to clear on the full meaning of that expression, but it is definately not the other way around.

[jt1]

SB seems to be a pretty bad player so he's is very likely to call his middle pair or gutshot on the turn. Given that I like checking the turn. AS a rule, I don't attempt to move non TAGS off made hands.

I'd just call pre-flop and check fold the flop.

In most situations you bet the turn against a normal player because many players in the normal range peel very loosely, but in this situation, sb has to be on something and would 1)call every turn 2) probably give you a free showdown given the preflop stregth you shown (though that maybe be results oriented thinking)

[imported_leader]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The saying is the other way around I believe.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've never been to clear on the full meaning of that expression, but it is definately not the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[fizzleboink]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The saying is the other way around I believe.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've never been to clear on the full meaning of that expression, but it is definately not the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

You want to bet without outs because you want to use your fold equity.

You check with outs because your chance of improving on the river is better than your fold equity.

[Megenoita]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The saying is the other way around I believe.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've never been to clear on the full meaning of that expression, but it is definately not the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where tf is this quote? I can't find it for some reason...

My understanding was that you tend to bet with no outs because you can fold to the raise. That said, if you fear villain can bluff-raise, then this doesn't apply (I believe Sklansky makes that point, too). You tend to check with outs because you don't need that fold equity as badly.

I found info in TOP on page 87 that actually advises to tend to bet with outs and check with no outs, though, for the reasons that have been stated in this thread.

I think if the way I quoted it is correct, the difference in application of the two contradicting statements is perhaps when the pot is bigger and you don't care so much about the fold equity, but getting to the river is more important.

M