line between slowplaying and losing value?

[Danh Bai]

I come across these two phrases a lot on here:

1) Bet to keep the worse hand in and make the better hand fold
2) Don't slowplay

What I'm not sure i get is where the line is drawn between the two. In some ways i feel they contradict each other. For example if I bet just enough to keep the wrse hand in and they improve to beat me on the turn or the river, didn't I solw play it?

I seem to be more successful when I try to take the pot down early, even if I am betting worse hands out. I often get burned when the weaker hand pays against the odds but then improves to beat me.

Can someone shed some light on this for me?

[spoonitnow]

If you bet and a worse hand folds because they aren't getting proper odds to call, then that's a worse result for you than if they called incorrectly.

[kb coolman]

I seem to be more successful when I try to take the pot down early, even if I am betting worse hands out.

I feel the same way sometimes, but it's hard to be objective in this without reviewing a ton of hand history. We tend to remeber the times we get sucked out on, when in reality getting the worse hand to call is overwhelmingly +EV. Risking the suckout is part of the game.

To me, pure slowplaying is checking a strong hand that is still vulnerable. Like flopping two pair or a set, but the board presents a flush draw. If your op is willing to stack off on the draw, you need to get it all in every time for +EV. Loosing the hand sucks really bad, and it's gonna happen from time to time.

Earlier today, I caught QQ and had a three way pot with two other loose aggressive. post-flop, I still had the overs, but two spades were on the board. EP shoves, so does MP, and I insta call. Sure enough, EP is 6s7s, MP is As9s. Perfect situation for me. 3s hits the river, but I'll still make this play over and over again.