Quote:
Originally Posted by gobbledygeek
Counter-arguments:
- we get to be the one who sets the bet size (and therefore influence overall pot size) by cbetting
- he can't bluff raise / float the flop to rep the turn if we check
- he can check back hands that would have started paying off 3 bets
GimoG
There is your argument. The not allowing him to bluff-raise. Which is probably the most important. Controlling the sizing is not your best case for argument.
Because we will easily maximize the value the most by checking in most instances vs said V. From his tendency of stab/call.
The issue is how do we get his stacks from bluffs, that's the only true argument I think c-betting has. If this is the type of Villain to spazz at a high % I think you have strong merit. I don't know if you have that argument here, which makes checking the more reasonable play. But, yes, spazz factor of bluffing is the biggest argument for c-betting this villain.
This villain does not sound like even close like he's the guy to check behind hands he would call 3 bets with. So I'm not giving that argument any weight.
It comes down to his bluff re-raise on flops. I don't think it's high enough to c-bet.
We should not always be thinking about taking stacks vs opponents, we should be thinking of how to maximize the BB we can win vs said opponent on each street.
V is not the guy to fold to a c/r with a straight draw. He'll probably call a gut-shot here to a c/r and he's likely not going to let it check through if he can win it right here.
If there was some history where Villain bluff-raised a gut-shot, I think you have stronger merit, but still not good enough. Because when he bluff-raises flop, you have to call to keep his range wide and he can then check behind turns.
Unlike when we c/r flops and he calls his draws, he wont get that option to check behind on turn we will bet again.
Last edited by Dochrohan; 12-23-2016 at 05:47 PM.