When is passive play right?

[damaniac]

[ QUOTE ]

No I'm not. I know MHIG here quite often. That's not the point. If I raise with the best hand, I win very little (he's bluffing and he folds). If I raise with a worse hand, I lose more than calling down.

[/ QUOTE ]

In some cases, this is true. Not here. His most likely betting hands that are worse than yours are straight draws, flush draws (K/Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]), or pair/draw combos (and maybe even any T). All of these hands you are ahead of, some, like the flush draw, you kill. BUT HE ISN'T FOLDING THEM! He's taking those to the river. Charge him on the way.

Contrast this with KK on an A72r board. He bets, raising is never folding an A, but may fold 99 or KQ or whatever hand he may be bluffing that is way behind. Then playing passively is wise, not here.
\

[ QUOTE ]
You have much to learn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

No I'm not. I know MHIG here quite often. That's not the point. If I raise with the best hand, I win very little (he's bluffing and he folds). If I raise with a worse hand, I lose more than calling down.

[/ QUOTE ]

In some cases, this is true. Not here. His most likely betting hands that are worse than yours are straight draws, flush draws (K/Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]), or pair/draw combos (and maybe even any J). All of these hands you are ahead of, some, like the flush draw, you kill. BUT HE ISN'T FOLDING THEM! He's taking those to the river. Charge him on the way.

Contrast this with KK on an A72r board. He bets, raising is never folding an A, but may fold 99 or KQ or whatever hand he may be bluffing that is way behind. Then playing passively is wise, not here.
\

[/ QUOTE ]

At last, we get to the crux of the matter. So, the question I have is this: in this hand would I make more by charging a draw, knowing I'm ahead of almost all flush draws, or by inducing a hopeless hand to bluff? If the villain was a LAG, would that change your mind any?

[damaniac]

Well just given the board, I doubt very many "hopeless" hands are betting it. The ones that may be hopeless (a naked high [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]) doesn't know he's hopeless so he's calling anyway.

If he's LAG I'm still raising. A lot of hands he'll have will still be worthy to keep going, and who knows? If he's that laggy, he might keep playing at me with crap anyway. The fact is, you can't always worry about keeping people around to bluff at you with crap. In this case, the board is very coordinated, virtually anything he's going to bluff at you with is going to continue, and if it's total crap, he'll often give up once called anyway. Just raise.

[krimson]

[ QUOTE ]
At last, we get to the crux of the matter. So, the question I have is this: in this hand would I make more by charging a draw, knowing I'm ahead of almost all flush draws, or by inducing a hopeless hand to bluff? If the villain was a LAG, would that change your mind any?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. You almost always make the most money (on average) by pushing hard with your good hands.

LAG's are no exception. Actually they are the opposite of an exception. When you get AA vs a LAG you should coax him into a shoving match and pay your hand off.

[Bill Smith]

[ QUOTE ]
At last, we get to the crux of the matter. So, the question I have is this: in this hand would I make more by charging a draw, knowing I'm ahead of almost all flush draws, or by inducing a hopeless hand to bluff

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to determine if the phrase "In This Hand" suggests situational thinking or results-oriented thinking. You're making the bad assumption that you're against a hopeless hand/draw of some type. Furthermore, you're also suggesting that by raising, they will somehow determine that their draw is hopeless and they won't pay off.

[ QUOTE ]
You're obviously not raising enough pre-flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

10% and I love to isolate. I think you definately get more action w/o the preflop raise and your equity only drops 6% or so letting a random hand in (Pokerstove assuming he limps PP above 66, any two above 10 suited, suited connecters over 78, a bunch of face cards, etc). If the BB is a calling station I obviously change my answer.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm trying to determine if the phrase "In This Hand" suggests situational thinking or results-oriented thinking. You're making the bad assumption that you're against a hopeless hand/draw of some type. Furthermore, you're also suggesting that by raising, they will somehow determine that their draw is hopeless and they won't pay off.

[/ QUOTE ]

I emphasized those words because some previous responses were over-generalizing about playing passively. The point of this post is that there are some hands where I think it's the right play, and damaniac gave an excellent example.

My assumption may be wrong here enough to make betting a better play. But I don't think it's as clear-cut as you make it sound; people bluff in these situations all the time (in this hand, villain was bluffing with A-high). On a 3-flush, 4-straight board, I think that there's a large number of players (at party 2/4) who will bluff-bet if checked to, and fold if bet to.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
On a 3-flush, 4-straight board, I think that there's a large number of players (at party 2/4) who will bluff-bet if checked to, and fold if bet to.

[/ QUOTE ]

And an overwhelming number of them will call/call/call. Therefore I raise preflop/bet/bet/bet.

[silkyslim]

id be raising basically everytime you decide to call. passive play is like playing with yourself. it gets the job done until someone catches you. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]