River bet - AK unimproved

[imported_leader]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I think that there's a bit more to it than just playing in an unfamiliar style, though that is certainly a big issue in my mind.

Another aspect is that our opponent may not be familiar with this style. This might sound like an entirely good thing, but I think that there is a drawback, at least against some opponents. If our opponent is confused, it really is going to make it harder to read his actions.

To put it differently, representing our hand in the "standard" way, with an appropriate amount of aggression, I believe, leads us to relatively predictable options (for better or worse); underpresenting our hand might create more options, but the additional options create additional issues and quandaries.

Maybe it sounds weak to argue that we should take certain actions because it makes life simpler. But aren't we often making the very same type of argument, when we suggest, for example, that someone should have raised, c/r or reraised one street because if helps define the action for the subsequent street?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that there maybe a slight bit more randomness added in to our opponent action, but I think this is largely mitigated EV-wise by a few things. First, most of our opponents are confused anyway and therefore have a tendency to make weird plays. Second, with experience we should be able to quantify this randomness just as we do after a PF 3-bet. Finally, a confused opponent would tend to be to our advantage in the vast majority of cases. Sure sometimes he'll think we're FOS when we aren't and maybe we make a bad fold, but there will also be times when he calls down or puts in many more bets with top pair because we "couldn’t possibly have an over pair or TPTK." In the end as SW said, it should not be a matter of one strategy OR the other, but rather a mixture of the two that will force you're opponents out of their comfort zone and into more post flop mistakes.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that there maybe a slight bit more randomness added in to our opponent action, but I think this is largely mitigated EV-wise by a few things. First, most of our opponents are confused anyway and therefore have a tendency to make weird plays. Second, with experience we should be able to quantify this randomness just as we do after a PF 3-bet. Finally, a confused opponent would tend to be to our advantage in the vast majority of cases. Sure sometimes he'll think we're FOS when we aren't and maybe we make a bad fold, but there will also be times when he calls down or puts in many more bets with top pair because we "couldn’t possibly have an over pair or TPTK." In the end as SW said, it should not be a matter of one strategy OR the other, but rather a mixture of the two that will force you're opponents out of their comfort zone and into more post flop mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is spot on. A big part of learning an unfamiliar style is recognizing how your opponent will react in a different situation. Let's be clear that I don't mean that you should expect to always know exactly what he is doing. You can't because he doesn't know either. Rather you need to know the *range* of possible ways he might handle his hand in the new environment so you can put the odds back in your favor.

However once you do this you reap major benefits against less skilled players. You've adjusted and are playing as well as ever but your opponent is confused and making more mistakes than ever. Your skill advantage has increased and so should your profits.

Don't forget that the most profitable opponents are usually the hardest to read. Calling stations aren't bad because people can read their hands. Quite the opposite, you never know his cards until you see them. It's much easier to read the hand of a good 2+2 but that doesn't mean I want to play him.

[Alobar]

You said hes aggresive, so he will likely bet any made hand on the river if you check. I dont see any A or K high hands hes taking to the river here betting if you check, that he wouldnt call a bet with. So that leaves some drawish type hands, but the most likely draw hands I think an aggresive opponent would have here, 3 bet this flop.

So id think you are a better favorite betting and getting called, then you are checking and calling.

Unless you are thinking check/fold, but given the opponent that sounds like a mistake.

[kross]

[ QUOTE ]
Scenario I: I 3-bet preflop and he calls. I autobet the flop.

Scenario II: I call preflop and checkraise his autobet.

Count the bets in each scenario. There is no lost value.

[/ QUOTE ]

But there IS lost value. Not on this hand, but future hands. 3-betting preflop will slow down liberal blind stealers. HPFAP says if you never play another hand again in your life, you should 3-bet less, for deception. It then goes on to say you should 3-bet more liberally, because you don't want your opponent to think, "I'm betting 2 SB to win 1.5 SB", but rather he needs to know that sometimes it will cost him more.

With your strategy, he knows you'll never reraise. He knows he has to succeed in folding the blinds about 60% of the time to show an automatic profit. By never 3-betting, you are encouraging him to continue to take shots at your blinds. Unless you're calling preflop with tons of trash, he will succeed.

So if you call preflop, he can then choose to be done with it. His steal didn't succeed, he can move on to the next hand if he didn't get a favorable flop. He always gets to see a flop on his terms, knowing he will never have to pay 3 bets to see a flop. Plus he has position on you.

You can't counter that by always check-raising the flop, because you can't. Sometimes he'll check behind. Some flops you don't want to check-raise. He now knows that you're tricky, and will check-raise many flops, so he can decide if he wants to bet or not. He gets to choose how many bets go in.

He's getting 4.5-1 on the flop, so he will continue to bet many flops, since he only has to win 25% of the time. The times that you check-fold to him (including you folding the best hand), plus the times when he flops something good, and he's getting the best of it.

He has position, and you're letting him take shots for cheap. It seems to me he's getting the best of it.

[imported_leader]

You should read the rest of this thread. Many of the points you brought up have been addressed already.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
He's getting 4.5-1 on the flop, so he will continue to bet many flops, since he only has to win 25% of the time. The times that you check-fold to him (including you folding the best hand), plus the times when he flops something good, and he's getting the best of it.

[/ QUOTE ]
You said this right after spending two paragraphs pointing out that he could counter my strategy by frequently checking the flop through. Do you realize you've refuted yourself?

Giving free cards headsup on the flop with busted hands is terrible stealing strategy and you've done an excellent job of explaining why. I get just as many T9o, J7s, and K5s hands in the BB as the next guy. If he's going to start raining free cards on those blind defenses then I'll accept making a little less on my infrequent good hands.

If he steals with 72o, gets headsup with the BB, and flops K85r versus my AA, then he just lost 3 SB for his poor timing. There is no acceptable way for him to avoid this. He can't fold to a preflop 3-bet because he has pot odds to see the flop. He can't not bet the flop if I just call because he has ample pot odds to autobluff his bust. In each case the "cure" to losing 3 SB on this particular hand is worse than the disease. If he still insists on not betting the flop then that's just extra EV for me.

[ QUOTE ]
HPFAP says if you never play another hand again in your life, you should 3-bet less, for deception. It then goes on to say you should 3-bet more liberally, because you don't want your opponent to think, "I'm betting 2 SB to win 1.5 SB", but rather he needs to know that sometimes it will cost him more.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's important to realize that this is a psychological argument. If Villain actually understands what is happening then he will realize that the cost is the same either way and it shouldn't matter to him or affect his steal frequency.

But the preflop 3-bet is more vivid and thus has a greater deterrent effect on many players. Now I could argue that I don't really care whether my opponent is deterred or not. After all there is a proper amount that Villain should be stealing and if he exceeds that then he will lose money. I don't care if he insists on playing badly and losing his money.

However there are two rightful objections to this argument:

1. Some players don't steal enough and can be bullied into stealing even less. That is an accomplishment of aggressive 3-betting.

2. The money Villain loses by stealing with junk goes in part to the SB and any players sitting behind Villain. It's not a zero-sum battle between myself and the thief. He loses money when the SB has a good hand and clobbers him. I lose money when he drives off my trash hand instead of giving me a free ride. So his excessive steals are -EV for him but they also have the side effect of redistributing my money to the SB. Thus it can be to my advantage to intimidate him into improving his play by stealing less.

This emphasizes the importance of being able to play different ways at different times and against different people.

[Wynton]

I just want to point out one more issue that I don't think has been addressed yet.

Most presumably recognize that there is not any one strategy that is best against all opponents. Also implicit I think is that even assuming one specific type of opponent, the optimal strategy may be different depending on how long the session is.

Thus, I might be persuaded not to 3-bet AK if I know I'm playing this opponent for the next hour; but if I know I'm stopping this orbit (and won't have a continuing history against my opponent), I think it's much harder to argue against 3-betting.

This might be a trite observation, but I think it's important to ground these theoretical debates in the context of fast-changing internet tables.

[StellarWind]

Villain shows JJ and HHIG.

[Benman]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont see any A or K high hands hes taking to the river here betting if you check, that he wouldnt call a bet with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who are these people that will call with less than an unpaired high card more often than they'd try to bluff + value bet with one? I believe you guys that they exist, I just don't run into them very often.

[wheelz]

that must be quite profitable for you then [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img] there's not much point in him betting his high card after stellar checks the river, so bet/fold is often better than check/call.