|
|
 Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Well, please dig into it and tell me specifics. I have offered reasons behind all of my choices. The terse, non-descriptive criticism that I am getting is hard to take a solid lesson from.
What happens if we call and we don't flop a set? we still have showdown value vs a lot of his range that missed, but we're going to be in a tough spot out of position. preflop equity isn't really relevent unless you're all in or unless your plan is to c/c to showdown (assuming your opponent doesn't open fold on any streets), DUCY?
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The goal is to extract maximum value on this hand, yes?
When we catch a set OOP, our plan is to check it down and never bet? I am not trying to be stupid here (it just comes naturally); I just don't get it. This sounds like a more -EV play than perhaps getting Villain to fold 77+ or Qx. our plan isn't to check it down
I can understand the line of checking the flop if we're baiting Villain into bluffing. We are likely so far ahead here that we can let Villain peel one if it goes check/ check. Check/ call is deceptive, as it doesn't reveal much about our hand. we check/call flop because villain is betting a larger range than he's calling with. deception doesn't really have anything to do with our plan anywhere in this hand
If it goes check/bet/ call on the flop, then shouldn't we be betting the turn to protect our hand, get value from worse, and put tough decisions to the stealer? will villain bet more than he'll call with?
If it goes check/ check then don't we want to bet the turn no matter what? Is it really best to give Villain 2 free cards here? Don't we maintain deception since we should be betting to take down an uncontested pot anyway? noone is advocating checking to showdown for deception
I don't understand why we're averse to taking down the pot on any later street.
|
Reply With Quote