Thanks for the kind comment, Hector. Unusually, it was quite enjoyable to write, as well! Often that kind of thing requires lots of hard work.
On the hand in question, I take all your points.
I've still a vague feeling that a shove on the turn isn't that bad a play in terms of EV against a certain type of player, of whom this player might have been one. This heads into the area of players looking for an excuse to call (a trap that I have fallen into myself).
So, with that kind of hand, he might say "he might be on a draw here, in which case I should call. And if he as trips, then I have a flush draw to win. And if it's Ace-Jack, I'm winning." On the turn, poorer players often call overbets on these grounds.
However, I don't dislike the pot bet on the turn either. You are right. The best thing to do is to just stick to betting the pot (or thereabouts) on flop, turn and river. Simple, consisttent, and the best line. Sure, it means I am committed if he raises me all-in, but the gains from the hands on which he calls will far outweigh the losses when the raise comes. Keep it simple.
On the metagame point, it's not that big a factor at these levels. There's quite a large player pool and I'm quite liable to put in an overbet in similar situations when I think the opponent is liable to call it. My bet sizes in this situation are very player-dependent (or, rather, player-stat-dependent). If this bet makes another opponent think that an overbet is always a bluff, I'm delighted.
"Chiselling" (as I term it) feels profitable to me, so long as your big bets on the river also represent a good hand most of the time. I've bluffed with half-pot bets, pot bets and shoves, but in each case the bluff makes up a small proportion of the whole.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-03 12:42 pm (UTC)On the hand in question, I take all your points.
I've still a vague feeling that a shove on the turn isn't that bad a play in terms of EV against a certain type of player, of whom this player might have been one. This heads into the area of players looking for an excuse to call (a trap that I have fallen into myself).
So, with that kind of hand, he might say "he might be on a draw here, in which case I should call. And if he as trips, then I have a flush draw to win. And if it's Ace-Jack, I'm winning." On the turn, poorer players often call overbets on these grounds.
However, I don't dislike the pot bet on the turn either. You are right. The best thing to do is to just stick to betting the pot (or thereabouts) on flop, turn and river. Simple, consisttent, and the best line. Sure, it means I am committed if he raises me all-in, but the gains from the hands on which he calls will far outweigh the losses when the raise comes. Keep it simple.
On the metagame point, it's not that big a factor at these levels. There's quite a large player pool and I'm quite liable to put in an overbet in similar situations when I think the opponent is liable to call it. My bet sizes in this situation are very player-dependent (or, rather, player-stat-dependent). If this bet makes another opponent think that an overbet is always a bluff, I'm delighted.
"Chiselling" (as I term it) feels profitable to me, so long as your big bets on the river also represent a good hand most of the time. I've bluffed with half-pot bets, pot bets and shoves, but in each case the bluff makes up a small proportion of the whole.
PJ