![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Betting into various flops and turns
Mar. 27th, 2009 11:49 amI don't like giving out too many strategic bits, because I see no reason to help opponents play better. But you have to throw out the occasional observation, just to keep people coming back.
So, here's something on wet and dry boards.
For non-poker players, an archetypal "dry" flop, one that turns up all the time in textbooks and hardly ever in real life, is K82 rainbow. There's no real straight or flush draw. Meanwhile, an archetypal "wet flop" would be JT9 single-suited, where opponent could have a straight or a flush or a straight draw or a flush draw.
The theory is that you can afford to bet a smaller proportion of the pot as a continuation bet with a dry board than you can with a wet board, but that's not the area I want to discuss here.
I want to look at different types of wet board and the different bet size I would adopt for each.
Let's take two boards that would commonly be described as "wet".
8d 7h 6s
Kc 7c 6h
In the first case an opponent may well have a draw to a straight (he may even have a made straight), but he won't have a flush draw. In the second case, opponent might have a draw to a flush or a straight, although he cannot have a made hand.
Now, suppose you have raised the pot pre-flop and the situation is that your opponent has defended the button from your raise in middle position. He is also a half-stack player. All other players fold.
So:
Pot = $7
Opponent = $36
You (with Ah Ad) = $97
In the first case, although the board is "wet", there are fewer cards that could be called scare cards. In this kind of situation I would bet a smaller proportion of the pot because there's a higher proportion of "brick" (useless) cards that can come on the turn than in scenario B. In the second case, although opponent probably has fewer cards that help him, there are more cards that can come on the turn that might help him. As such, I would tend to bet more.
Extrapolating this into a general principle, I would advise the following.
The more likely that you aren't going to know how you stand when the next card comes, the more you should bet as a proportion of your opponent's stack.
Now, how much? My second general principle would be:
If your opponent could be on a draw but you don't know what that draw is, bet an amount that denies him implied odds no matter what, and call him if he goes all-in if and when the scare card comes.
Contrarily:
If you are fairly sure what your opponent's draw is, offer him the implied odds, but do not pay him off if a card comes which you think has helped him.
These principles generally apply to opponents playing just above short-stack but well-below full stack, where the commitment bet takes place on the flop. As the stacks increase in size relative to the blinds, this key decision moves back in the hand to the turn. Sometimes the stacks are so deep that you can't make a sensible-sized bet that denies your opponent implied odds.
______________________
So, here's something on wet and dry boards.
For non-poker players, an archetypal "dry" flop, one that turns up all the time in textbooks and hardly ever in real life, is K82 rainbow. There's no real straight or flush draw. Meanwhile, an archetypal "wet flop" would be JT9 single-suited, where opponent could have a straight or a flush or a straight draw or a flush draw.
The theory is that you can afford to bet a smaller proportion of the pot as a continuation bet with a dry board than you can with a wet board, but that's not the area I want to discuss here.
I want to look at different types of wet board and the different bet size I would adopt for each.
Let's take two boards that would commonly be described as "wet".
8d 7h 6s
Kc 7c 6h
In the first case an opponent may well have a draw to a straight (he may even have a made straight), but he won't have a flush draw. In the second case, opponent might have a draw to a flush or a straight, although he cannot have a made hand.
Now, suppose you have raised the pot pre-flop and the situation is that your opponent has defended the button from your raise in middle position. He is also a half-stack player. All other players fold.
So:
Pot = $7
Opponent = $36
You (with Ah Ad) = $97
In the first case, although the board is "wet", there are fewer cards that could be called scare cards. In this kind of situation I would bet a smaller proportion of the pot because there's a higher proportion of "brick" (useless) cards that can come on the turn than in scenario B. In the second case, although opponent probably has fewer cards that help him, there are more cards that can come on the turn that might help him. As such, I would tend to bet more.
Extrapolating this into a general principle, I would advise the following.
The more likely that you aren't going to know how you stand when the next card comes, the more you should bet as a proportion of your opponent's stack.
Now, how much? My second general principle would be:
If your opponent could be on a draw but you don't know what that draw is, bet an amount that denies him implied odds no matter what, and call him if he goes all-in if and when the scare card comes.
Contrarily:
If you are fairly sure what your opponent's draw is, offer him the implied odds, but do not pay him off if a card comes which you think has helped him.
These principles generally apply to opponents playing just above short-stack but well-below full stack, where the commitment bet takes place on the flop. As the stacks increase in size relative to the blinds, this key decision moves back in the hand to the turn. Sometimes the stacks are so deep that you can't make a sensible-sized bet that denies your opponent implied odds.
______________________
