#1
|
|||
|
|||
Weak/passive - sometimes the best approach?
This is a line I sometimes take in small pots with only 2-3 players if my hand is not very vulnerable (say a pair of kings or aces with weak kicker). Your thoughts?
Assume typical opponents: Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (9 handed) Preflop: Hero is SB with A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. UTG folds, UTG+1 calls, MP1 folds, MP2 folds, MP3 folds, CO folds, Button folds, Hero completes, BB checks. Flop: (3 SB) 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="blue">(3 players)</font> Hero checks, BB checks, <font color="CC3333">UTG+1 bets</font>, Hero calls, BB calls. Turn: (3 BB) Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] <font color="blue">(3 players)</font> Hero checks, BB checks, UTG+1 checks. River: (3 BB) 8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="blue">(3 players)</font> Hero checks, BB checks, <font color="CC3333">UTG+1 bets</font>, Hero calls, BB folds. Final Pot: 5 BB |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Weak/passive - sometimes the best approach?
[ QUOTE ]
Your thoughts? [/ QUOTE ] I like the general concept and use it very liberally, but in this hand I think it's misapplied. On the flop you can't forecast a bet from either opponent and there is a two flush on board. I would bet out and make the flush draw pay. Checking is close but I think betting is better here. The turn: You stuck to your plan, this is fine - it's a poor result though. You would really like to see a bet go in on this street. The river: You should bet. You will get called by a lot of worse hasnds but not many worse hands will bet into this small pot. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Weak/passive - sometimes the best approach?
I aggree this isnt the best example. However, the chance that any of my two opponents has a flush draw is really slim and if they do theyre likely to semi-bluff with it all the way (I know I would!).
[ QUOTE ] On the flop you can't forecast a bet from either opponent [/ QUOTE ] At Party 2/4 I think the last person is gonna bet when checked to in a small pot like this over 80% of the time - no matter what he has. The check through on the turn is unfortunate of course. Had BB folded on the flop I think a second bet from UTG would have been more likely. I don't like betting out on the river. The 3rd [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] is scary and if I suddenly come to life here I'm unlikely to get called by any marginal hands like middle pair - and I would hate to get raised. I'd rather give my opponents the chance to bluff at this scare card and/or bet a marginal hand they think is good. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Weak/passive - sometimes the best approach?
You have to bet this against 2.
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Weak/passive - sometimes the best approach?
Is anyone Raising Preflop here?
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Weak/passive - sometimes the best approach?
I used to always raise preflop here. Used to...but it's an idea, for sure.
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Weak/passive - sometimes the best approach?
Your average player on Party 2-4 here may have the QhJd and then bet this flop. That is a good time to c/r him! He often will call because he has some quality runner-runner draws, and then fold to your bet on the turn. Or, if he picks up the heart draw (and sometimes the broadway gutshot, whatever), he will call and see the river.
My point is that this pattern is predictable: blinds check, last to act bets. Last to act doesn't have a hand every time. You should exploit this. I can see that you do exploit this in some way by inducing a river bluff with your flop call+turn check+river check...but I think it's very speculative to try to guess what an opponent will do two streets down the road. |
|
|