An interesting line with which I don't necessarily disagree. As I said, I think the check-raise on the flop is better. Suppose that you do this. Your opponent calls. You then bet out the turn and he calls again. I assume that you now check-call the river?
You wrote In fact if he isn't actually a calling station, then checkraising is better than calling to try to take control of the hand and induce a fold then or on the river if he doesn't have much.
I think that on the river, following your line of play, you have roughly the equivalent of an AK unpaired. In other words, as Jennifer Harman points out, it's better to check-call, because if you bet the only hands that you will get to fold are the ones which you are beating.
I don't necessarily disagree with the line you advocate, although I think that the EV between that line and the line taken is very very close.
I quite like a check-raise on the flop and then a continuation on the turn (hence my explanation for my failure to do it in this particular case). He may well fold if he has missed completely. I could probably work out the EV on this quite accurately (and compare it to the check-calling line reported here). However, that wasn't the question I posed. Assuming that you take the check-call line, what is your position against various types of player betting at you on the turn and on the river?
It's a theoretical question with general application, rather than a discussion of a particular hand. If I had added in the check-raise option, it created a complexity that would have obfuscated the point I was (eventually) planning to make.
On your final point, you lose even in position the value of being able to see a checked river by calling on the turn since you know he will just keep betting until he meets a raise, you seem to miss one vital aspect. if there is a less than 50% chance of him beating you, then there is no "value" to a checked river. You want the bet. There is only value to a checked river if you are less than 50% to win the pot. (Once again, these are general points I'm heading towards, rather than ones which are specific to this hand)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Your Play of the Hand
Date: 2006-03-27 07:34 am (UTC)An interesting line with which I don't necessarily disagree. As I said, I think the check-raise on the flop is better. Suppose that you do this. Your opponent calls. You then bet out the turn and he calls again. I assume that you now check-call the river?
You wrote In fact if he isn't actually a calling station, then checkraising is better than calling to try to take control of the hand and induce a fold then or on the river if he doesn't have much.
I think that on the river, following your line of play, you have roughly the equivalent of an AK unpaired. In other words, as Jennifer Harman points out, it's better to check-call, because if you bet the only hands that you will get to fold are the ones which you are beating.
I don't necessarily disagree with the line you advocate, although I think that the EV between that line and the line taken is very very close.
I quite like a check-raise on the flop and then a continuation on the turn (hence my explanation for my failure to do it in this particular case). He may well fold if he has missed completely. I could probably work out the EV on this quite accurately (and compare it to the check-calling line reported here). However, that wasn't the question I posed. Assuming that you take the check-call line, what is your position against various types of player betting at you on the turn and on the river?
It's a theoretical question with general application, rather than a discussion of a particular hand. If I had added in the check-raise option, it created a complexity that would have obfuscated the point I was (eventually) planning to make.
On your final point, you lose even in position the value of being able to see a checked river by calling on the turn since you know he will just keep betting until he meets a raise, you seem to miss one vital aspect. if there is a less than 50% chance of him beating you, then there is no "value" to a checked river. You want the bet. There is only value to a checked river if you are less than 50% to win the pot. (Once again, these are general points I'm heading towards, rather than ones which are specific to this hand)
PJ