01-16-2010, 09:18 PM
|
 | Senior Member | | Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 300
| |
I think betting is good because I believe we are almost never getting bluffed here vs a check-raise, and while we have equity against better hands, we're not getting blown off our equity or enough equity enough of the time for this to be an issue (tpwk which we have good equity against is not likely to c/r here). Lots of weaker hands that we beat also improved either from draws to weaker pairs who now have gutshots. Finally, we have a hand strong enough to call the river, and if we expect Qx to bet the river if we check and check if we bet, and we don't want to fold a river brick, then we might as well bet. By betting here, we also improve our double barreling range and unpolarize it, making it more difficult for our opponent to play turns over all, although this is not a huge factor in my decision, being able to balance your barreling ranges is a key factor in becoming difficult to play against, and this is one of the key things I note about regs when I play them--whether they are able to bet thin on turns with mid pairs or weaker value hands, and whether they can check back strong hands on flops to balance their check-back range, which relates to the second hand. As a rule, according to game theory or whatever pretentious name I want to drop, if it's profitable to bluff with ATC, it's best to bluff with the bottom of my range and check back the top of my range. Because I believe it's unprofitable to bluff 100% for balance purposes and because checking back is not an issue against this opponent (he is reasonably weak that I feel I can play my hand profitably and not auto-cbet), I believe checking back here is best. And yes, I would be capable of checking back ace high, especially against players who are more stab happy but not too loose preflop and with calldowns, however.
 |
Linear Mode
