page 166, they use this hand to introduce "stack-to-pot concept"
10-handed $2-$5game that is fairly loose,esp. preflop. everyone has $500(100BB). it's folded to you, you raise to $15 with K
K
, button and big blind call.
pot is $47
flop:T
7
5
you bet $45, button calls, big blind folds
turn:Q
you are
not commited and you expect your opponent to have better than kings if he goes all-in so you check.
he bets $125 and you're screwed.
what they suggest (page 168):
you raise preflop to 6BB($30)
same callers again, same flop. pot is $92, you bet $90, same caller.
the pot is $272, you have $380 left.
same turn.
"should you commit? yes. there's too much money in the pot to lay down an overpair against fairly loose opponents.
since your aggressive opponent likes to bet the tirn, you check. he bets $180. you check-raise all-in.
alternatively, you decide he won't bet the turn often enough to justify going for a checkraise. so you lead out with another bet
...
the hand became easier and more profitable to play"
why is it more profitable? because in the first example you put your opponent on a good hand and in the second you put him on a bad hand/bluff?
i don't get it