|
|
#12
08-04-2004, 11:04 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Reasonable spot to bluff?
The specific situation under discussion is if you have one opponent on whom you have position. You have flopped top two and a weak draw (such as a non-nut flush or an 8-out straight). You have bet the flop and been called, and then the turn was a blank and the opponent checks to you.
[ QUOTE ] If you have top two, you cannot afford to let another player off on the turn by checking it ... Betting is compulsory with the hand you describe. There's almost no two ways about it. [/ QUOTE ] I continue to hold to my opinion, that checking behind is the better play. I am very willing to be convinced otherwise, but here is my reasoning. If you bet, what worse hands are there that will call? 2 pair worse than top two will probably fold. The lame overpair hands that at least one poster here loves to play will certainly fold (unless he makes the check-raise bluff). So the bottom line is that there are no made hands that you beat which will call, only the drawing hands. Risk of checking: 1. Drawing hands will not pay to draw at you. Ameliorating factor: With some of those draws, you'll be chopping anyway. For other draws, you hold some of their outs, so they are less likely to hit than would be the case if you didn't have your weak draw. 2. Weak drawing hands and worse made hands (bottom 2 pair, for instance) that would fold now get a chance for a miracle card. (However, see point 6, below.) Pros of checking: 1. Weaker made hands may overrate your weakness and bet at you on the river. 2. Pot stays much smaller when you are beaten, because you have avoided the check-raise. Note that checking the turn and calling a pot-sized bet on the river costs you exactly the same as if you had bet the turn and folded to the check-raise, and you get to see the showdown. 3. If you are the one drawing, you get to do it for free. 4. Because you showed weakness on the turn, opponent will be unlikely to check, planning to check-raise on the river. Therefore, if a card comes which looks like one that finishes a draw (even if it is not yours) and the opponent checks to you, you can pretty safely bet out and will probably bluff off someone with a set. 5. You can't be bluffed off of a winning hand. 6. Weaker made hands (bottom 2 or top and bottom) and even a stronger hand -- bottom set -- might hit the miracle card that gives them a smaller full house than yours. Now you get their whole stack. Pros of betting: 1. If opponent is drawing, he now pays to do so. Therefore, you win more money when opponent is drawing and doesn't hit. 2. If opponent has a worse made hand or a bad draw, he will fold and doesn't get the opportunity to pick up the miracle card. Risk of betting: 1. There are plenty of made hands which are much better than yours, and these will all check-raise you. Your weak draw won't give you odds to call, so you have to lay it down. 2. You are at risk of a check-raise bluff or semi-bluff. These all add up, to me, that you should check behind on the turn. Agree or disagree? 
|
|
#14
08-04-2004, 11:48 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Checking top 2 on the turn ?
Hi,
Zag, when you add pros and cons, you should also consider the weigh of each point. When and opponent checks and calls on the flop and checks on the turn when the board is filled with draws, but no possible big hand yet, like the one on this hand ( Qc 9c 3 6 ), you can be pretty sure he is on a draw, or has a very weak made hand+draw. There is just no way he has a set, unless he is a very very bad player, or really has a monster (QQTcJc). So if you check behind with top 2 pair, the truth is you give him infinite odds to his draw. You should absolutely never do that, unless you just want to give up that hand for some reason. I really think this is basic PLO theory. This being said, the other problem in your post is that among the 6 points in favor of checking, I think at least 5 are wrong... I wont discuss each of them (no time, sorry), but IMHO you really should rethink the way you play PLO, because giving free cards with top 2 pair when it was checked-called on flop and it is checked again to you on the turn is a very costing mistake. Sorry if my tone is a little hard, but really, it is bad poker, I think. Read or reread Ciaffone's and Reuben's various texts about PLO, or at least crockpot's page if you have not done so. If you want, I will comment each point you made later, maybe tomorrow, if nobody does it. See you sahaguje
|
|
#15
08-04-2004, 01:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Reasonable spot to bluff?
[ QUOTE ]
You said: “The specific situation under discussion is if you have one opponent on whom you have position. You have flopped top two and a weak draw (such as a non-nut flush or an 8-out straight). You have bet the flop and been called, and then the turn was a blank and the opponent checks to you.” I said: “If you have top two, you cannot afford to let another player off on the turn by checking it ... Betting is compulsory with the hand you describe. There's almost no two ways about it.” [/ QUOTE ] Correct. [ QUOTE ] I continue to hold to my opinion, that checking behind is the better play. I am very willing to be convinced otherwise, but here is my reasoning. If you bet, what worse hands are there that will call? 2 pair worse than top two will probably fold. [/ QUOTE ] Not always, but getting a reasonable figure here would be difficult. Even so, this is one reason why you must bet. You want more chips out of them when you are ahead AND you want to charge them for chasing their miracle FH outs. “The lame overpair hands that at least one poster here loves to play will certainly fold (unless he makes the check-raise bluff). So the bottom line is that there are no made hands that you beat which will call, only the drawing hands.” You've said it yourself. For that very reason that you must bet here to prevent over pairs, or indeed any pair hitting their 2-outer and often forcing you to pay them off. "Risk of checking: Drawing hands will not pay to draw at you. Ameliorating factor: With some of those draws, you'll be chopping anyway. For other draws, you hold some of their outs, so they are less likely to hit than would be the case if you didn't have your weak draw." Correct - and all the more reason to bet. You have to charge the draws a price, but especially so when you have some of their outs. You are skewing the odds vastly in your favour. If you don’t bet, you are giving them a free card – the worst crime in the book. Suppose you knew their hand – board J, T, 3, two clubs. You have the JT; they have: 7 and 8 of clubs. They are drawing to a (poor) gutshot and a poor flush. You MUST bet here. "2. Weak drawing hands and worse made hands (bottom 2 pair, for instance) that would fold now get a chance for a miracle card. (However, see point 6, below.)” No miracle cards in the example I gave above – the usual combo of nine flush cards and three outs for a gutshot – a typical Omaha drawing hand; and one that any half decent player would ditch on the flop. But if the OP has called with this lousy holding, then you have no choice but to charge him again on the turn. And these will constitute the majority of the hands in question; not the amazing twentycard wrap, but just weak, crappy hands. You have to kill them off. "Pros of checking: 1. Weaker made hands may overrate your weakness and bet at you on the river." True – but you will end up paying off a lot here. Because you will have no idea why they are springing to life. If a scare card comes - the third flush card, etc, you will nearly always either be folding or paying them off. It's even worse when an innocuous card - say an 8 on a board of K,Q,2,4,8 arrives. But your opponent with J,T,88 has now just demolished your top two. If you had bet on the turn, he would either have folded , or B, and this is most important, checked his good thing to you on the river, because he couldn't be sure, following your bet on the turn who held the better hand - trip Kings or Queens in this instance. In other words, betting the turn gives you the free showdown on the river you so desire – more often than not. "2. Pot stays much smaller when you are beaten, because you have avoided the check-raise." If you are C Raised on the turn with top two in PLO you are almost certainly up against a monster and you almost certainly have to fold, unless you have an unbelievably accurate read on your opponent. (Sometimes this is possible, but even so you would like more than 2-pair to call.) And further, how often does this happen? Very rarely. Finally, what is wrong with having a big pot when you have the best hand? "Note that checking the turn and calling a pot-sized bet on the river costs you exactly the same as if you had bet the turn and folded to the check-raise, and you get to see the showdown." As I said, you are rarely check raised on the turn. I can remember it happening once to me in the last year, in live play. It’s only happened a few times online. Online, I’ve folded. No big deal. Being caught up calling top two pair against a potentially much much better hand is a very different scenario from being checked to on the turn. “3. If you are the one drawing, you get to do it for free.” You mean, if your opponent has trips, or rarely, where you share top two, and he has better accompanying overcards? I agree, but any good player is going to bet his trips here to prevent you drawing out on him – if he has top set. Very often, you will find that bottom set or even middle set, if the players are weak tight, will check call. Here you have two things going for you: if they don’t CR you – you will probably lose. But guess what? Your top two now becomes a real money spinner against any bottom or middle set, as they both think they have the nuts, often times, when the board pairs your top or second pair. They will bet into you, you can raise and when you are very lucky, one of them will occasionally reraise all-in. Secondly, by betting into them, you still get a FREE RIVER – the objective which you so desired. If the OP now bets into you and you call with TT, well, you’ve been outplayed. Again, no big deal. But this is the critical part – if you want a free showdown, better to bet the turn. The above is excluding those hands where you have a weak accompanying draw. Where you have a (weak) accompanying draw, I still argue it is best to bet. Board: K,Q, 7, turn a blank, you have K,Q, J, 9, you become even more willing to bet here. You may well have a couple of the outs the OP wants. That improves your hand substantially. Secondly, while the gutshot may seem good, a T on the river can give the OP a better hand. To prevent that happening, you must once again bet the turn. The same principle applies when you have a weak flush draw to go with your top two. Bet the turn. “4. Because you showed weakness on the turn, opponent will be unlikely to check, planning to check-raise on the river.” Hmmm…this sounds very hypothetical. Any examples you might have in mind? I’m not entirely sure what the point is. I can see he won’t want to check with the aim of CR. But this doesn’t happen all that often in any case, does it? Only a very small minority of good players are capable of bluff check raising the river – although when you have checked the turn is as good a time to do it as any. “Therefore, if a card comes which looks like one that finishes a draw (even if it is not yours) and the opponent checks to you, you can pretty safely bet out and will probably bluff off someone with a set.” That’s a nice play. I don’t think you gain as much in this instance as you do by betting the turn however, to charge any sort of drawing hand a price to draw out on you. “5. You can't be bluffed off of a winning hand.” Not sure what you mean here. If the board comes runner runner eight say, and the OP now launches a pot sized bet, are you calling him down with top two? Even if it’s winning? "6. Weaker made hands (bottom 2 or top and bottom) and even a stronger hand -- bottom set -- might hit the miracle card that gives them a smaller full house than yours. Now you get their whole stack." As discussed. I fear that while well argued, checking the turn in the scenario envisaged is nothing other than weak tight, especially so against one player. You likely have the best hand, and with that, you should bet. Pros of betting and cons of betting: …. Agree or disagree? [/ QUOTE ] Disagree [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
