Quote Originally Posted by allabout
Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Quote Originally Posted by borges
Quote Originally Posted by JKDS
Quote Originally Posted by borges
If we are OOP, we should check/call for 3 streets with
TT-KK??? Doesn't this turn our hand face up to the villian??? Can't a villian then say to himself after the first check/call? He doesn't have an ace, I can rep the ace and push him out of the pot?
if we were to check call 3 streets with these hands, this would be the reason
OK JKDS, so for example suppose he shoves all-in on the turn or even makes a large bet, shouldn't we be reevaluating this line at this point? Our hand now just becomes a bluff catcher since we don't even have TPTK. The so-called "Baluga Theorem" (named after the poster Baluga Whale on 2+2), basically says that when the opponent bets big or goes all-in on turn, one pair is no good. I'm not saying I know what is right here....I'm just questioning and trying to understand.
Villain could exploit our check/call range because it's not balanced. We could adjust by occasionally checking monsters. If he doesn't exploit our check/calling range, then making it less exploitable by checking monsters wouldn't be of much use.
Exactly...but checking this particular flop with a monster would be a disaster, wouldn't it? (and I realize your not saying we should check this flop)
If it's in proper balance then no. As it stands, if we bet 2nd pair or better plus KsQs, when we check the flop Villain could take down the pot with any two. This implies that we should throw in some medium-strength hands to check/call with and/or some monsters to check/call or check/raise with. (There are further implications, like if we only check/raised with monsters he could always get away with something like JJ so we should check/raise as a bluff occasionally, but that's getting a bit too deep.) The point is that we have an exploitable behavior, and if it's being exploited sufficiently, we should adjust and one possible adjustment (though not necessarily the best one) is to check a monster on the flop.

This is more of an issue when you're talking about general tendencies than this specific flop since we hit this specific flop so hard. But in general if someone only c-bets when they catch a piece, and check when they don't, then betting whenever they check exploits that and measures should be taken to adjust.

But like I think you're saying, if you think about this in the context of what Renton describes as the A/B/C/D subranges (link to that thread), then it's the range of 2nd pairs that we have that we would tend to prefer to check/call, instead leaving the monsters for value bets. The problem then is that our check/call range is very unbalanced, and this (combined with position) gives our opponent the chance to put the pressure on, giving the hard decisions to us if he decides to fire big bets on later streets. If some portion of our checking range is a monster, then it's harder for him to fire with air in the first place.