Actually, I believe even the possibility of the flop been checked through is not such a disaster. We do miss a small bet from players who would call the flop, it's true. However, we actually win probably something on the order of a small bet on average from players who would fold the flop if we bet.

Indeed, a player who doesn't have a pair on the flop turns a pair or something else worth continuing with around 1/5th of the time. We will probably win around 2BB from that player on average after that. So by giving him a free card we actually gain something like 0.4BB.

So I think we shouldn't overestimate the danger of the flop getting checked through.

Hm, I messed up my numbers a bit in the post above but the general point still stands.

You guys are not considering where the likely bet will come from. We aren't indifferent. If we knew that there were an EP guy who likes to stab, c/r could be expert. Once they get a bet in, the second will follow. Even if you knew the button would bet, i think you'd rather lead and hope he raises your obvious bluff. Knowing nothing, guess.

Purposely obtuse? We are never bluffing when leading out into a big field.. Passive fish don't care what we have -- they just look at their own two cards when deciding whether to bet/raise..

This thread screams of 'result-oriented' piling on. Had an EP player bet, I doubt there would be this outcry of 'bet your damn hand'.

Biggest mistake is not raising after the check. On a flop of 26Jr with 22, I'd be a lot more inclined to smooth call. On that flop, lots of fish will call with 1 overcard for 1 SB. On an A-hi flop, either they have a piece and will call 2SB or they don't have a piece and will fold.

I prefer leading out to check-raising. Period. I think players end up outsmarting themselves when they think about check-raising in this situation. So I am not being results oriented. Flop the nuts in a limped pot, I bet. Period.

A check-raise is a second-best play, which might be fine with a read. If the guy sitting to your left bets every flop when checked to, it is probably correct to check-raise. But that's going to be the rare exception. 99 percent of the time you can't be sure where the bet might come from, so just bet.

The term "smooth call" should be banished from the poker vocabulary. There's nothing "smooth" about not putting money into the pot with the nuts in a multi-way pot. It's wrong. If the term were "donk call" or "fish call", maybe fewer players would miss obvious value.

And I'm not really worried about whether I'm never bluffing, but for the record, I could very well be semi-bluffing on this board every now and then.

I think you're flat wrong about c/r being best in this spot. I would have said the same if our OP had stopped the post at "I flop the nuts and do what?" I'm going to bet my darned hand here, without a read that says otherwise. My default isn't to play backwards.

I was using poetic license with the "raise your obvious bluff". It really depends on the players how the react to a BB donking (I know we aren't, but they're bad), and those reads aren't in the OP. Given no reads, it is hard to gauge how likely a raise of your lead with 4 calls is versus a bet that you raise and then people cold calling. Can't we have a little fun while posting?

I never said x/r is best. I said it's a small mistake. With 8+ players in, I think x/r is best.

It all depends on how often does it check through? Say 25%?

i.e., the other 75% of the time, we need to bloat the pot to make up for the lost bets the other 25% of the time. I don't think this is that unreasonable. There's a huge gap for passive fish between what they bet and what they raise with. On this flop, I think there isn't that big a gap between what they call 1 or 2 cold with (fish I'm used to will coldcall here with any pair or GS). As I mentioned, I also think there's a small gap for passive fish between what they raise and b/3b with (namely, 2p+).

My issue is that with only 4 people behind, it may get checked through more than I like.

Redboullion mentioned that even if it checks through, it's not disaster, because some new hands will now give us action, still utterly behind. So, we recover some of the lost bets on the FLOP even if it gets checked through.

As long as the villains ignore pot size when calling your bets/raises, sure. If they become more sticky in larger pots, you want more money in from more people ASAP. In that case, getting people to call your flop bet both ties them on later and is easier for them to justify turn calls. By delaying to the turn, you're making them call double size bets in a smaller pot.

All of this is the converse of advice about protecting leading/vulnerable hands. All of the advice for check and hope someone in late position will bet, allowing you to make the field face a double bet. The stuff where we pass on thin flop value because if we can bet in a smaller pot on the turn and maybe protect our hand. If any of that advice is true, with the nuts we'd do something else.

For the record "I call that obvious bluff" is a staple of my table banter.