|
|
#5
10-28-2005, 01:23 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Interesting WA/WB situations
The turn is a pretty easy check/call.
I'm not sure why check/call is better than bet/fold on the river though. It's pretty clear that we want to see a showdown after we call the turned Ace, so I can't imagine ever inducing a bluff with a river check. 
|
|
#6
10-28-2005, 01:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting WA/WB situations
The next time I do my standard "check the river to induce a bluff because you're probably not winning 50% of the time if you're called" bit and everyone screams "omg value bet", I'm going to talk about my four friends who all advocate a check/call. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
|
#7
10-28-2005, 10:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interesting WA/WB situations
The problem with check-calling the river is you don't have any fold equity. You don't always want to just check-call. Against passives you should practically always bet-fold. Against a TAG, if he will call with more hands than he will bet with, then the highest EV play is to bet-fold, but if he is *much* more likely to bet with more hands than he'll call with, we should check-call. If he is capable of bluff raising, then you have to factor that into your EV calc. A high enough bluff raise percentage would push the play toward check-call, which is why that is good against tricky players, I suppose.
The one advantage to check-calling a TAG is that you get to see their cards if you lose, which can be valuable info in the future. But probably not as valuable as making them fold the best hand in a large pot. I worked out all the math behind this and posted it in the theory section, but got no responses. Here's a link.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
