Value of "having the lead" - Page 2 - Live Low-stakes No Limit Poker Forum

I understand all of this. Thank you. Still, maybe I am just being super dense but this sounds like a post about the value of aggression, not about having the lead specifically. Of course when you raise a lot, you have the lead a lot, but the inherent value in what you are doing, as described ^^here, comes from the aggression, not from the lead.

Consider: You have been raising a lot, and you have the table image you descibe above... Now comes a hand where you limp/call preflop, or maybe you raise and call a re-raise. You don't have "the lead." But you can still c-bet just the same and with the same results as if you technically had the lead in this hand.

No, you really cant do that. When you raise and someone 3 bets you- and you only call villains raise, then villain has the betting lead and will be taking down the pot with a C-bet or delayed C-bet on the turn a good percentage of the time. Because the last aggressors percieved range is much stronger, see the post from "call me vernon" wich explains that very well.

Quote

03-25-2014 , 01:34 PM

#27

Fritz1

grinder

Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 461

Quote:

Originally Posted by iraisetoomuch

I think you are correct in the sense that a lot of this discussion is moving towards hand reading and away from 'who has the lead'.
But I think that's because having the lead as you say leads into hand reading.

It leads into perceived ranges. It leads into fold equity and a number of other higher level concepts. (Higher level than, I can haz two cards, they iz pretty?!)

The idea is that even if people don't think about hand ranges, and don't think about equity, and don't think about pot size they understand concepts like 'strength' and 'weakness' and 'bluffing' and 'not bluffing'. The understand these general ideas and when you raise you are 'strong' and when you limp or call, you are 'weak'. When you bet again, you are 'strong' and when you check you are 'weak'. So, when we raise we take the initiative, and we are now strong and when we bet again, we are really strong. So, we can win pots that we would not have otherwise.

I'm not really sure if the effect of 'having the lead' in an of it self can be quantified, but it becomes just another aspect of the the game that merges all together with other ideas like hand reading to give us (as good players) an overall idea what what we think we should do in a hand. And for a bad player, it gives them a reason to fold when they 'don't feel it' or whatever the current fishy logic that prevails it.

Ok, now this definitely makes sense and is in harmony with everything the other posters itt have said.

I will have to go back to the Annie Duke book and see if she seems to be saying this or something different. (Again, she is definitely talking about the value of having the lead even when all players at the table are good players.)

Quote

03-25-2014 , 01:39 PM

#28

Fritz1

grinder

Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 461

Quote:

Originally Posted by answer20

Poker is act and re-act. Your table image goes along with your ability to 'take the lead' or 'control the betting'. You will see this referenced on live poker commentary by real professionals quite often as well, so it is a topic that you will want to try and understand.

When someone opens the betting PF they are trying to (implying to) project a strong holding and thus you are reacting to that bet. And as long as they are leading the betting you are giving them information 'after the fact' that they will use in the next round of betting.

They really aren't giving you as much information by betting as you are by calling. You can only assume that they have a strong hand that goes with the board. But by calling (and not raising) you are narrowing your hands to those that do hit the board. (Unless both of you are bluffing, and thats where poker becomes poker).

Once you stop leading it is seen as 'giving up' on the hand and opens up the door for the next guy to 'take control' of the pot. Certainly this can be used against aggressive opponets who have position on you to open up the door to a c/r, but normally it just means that OR is not as interested in the pot as before.

When you lead the betting, you decide if its a teaser bet or an over-bet ... or anything inbetween. You are the story teller and the others have to either keep along or try to 'interrupt' and tell their story (by raising, donk betting).

There is also the consideration of hands you can raise with, but not CALL a raise with. And when someone leads out, then they 'assume' that your range of hands narrows. A perfect example of this is K9/KT/KJs. Some would say that you could raise with this in late position since no one has show an interest in 'leading' this pot. (yes, that is a position reference, but play along). But you very rarely should call a raise with this hand for fear of being dominated by AK which is a more typical opening hand from ANY position.

I have not read her book (that I remember) so I am not sure of your complete reference, but poker is a game of aggression and if you can 'sell your story' you can pick up valuable chips that wouldn't be available without 'taking the lead'. GL

Quote

03-25-2014 , 01:45 PM

#29

Fritz1

grinder

Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 461

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilmour

[/B]

No, you really cant do that. When you raise and someone 3 bets you- and you only call villains raise, then villain has the betting lead and will be taking down the pot with a C-bet or delayed C-bet on the turn a good percentage of the time. Because the last aggressors percieved range is much stronger, see the post from "call me vernon" wich explains that very well.

Villain will be taking down the pot with a c-bet only if you check/fold. If you donk and he has missed, he will likely fold, with or without the lead.

I'll re-read Vernon post.

Quote

03-25-2014 , 01:45 PM

#30

stinkubus

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 4,422

If you have the lead you are obviously the one most likely to seize fold equity on not only the current street, but the next as well. This is due to the tendency of almost everyone to check to the aggressor of the previous street.

Biggest advantage to having the betting lead or "initiative" imo.

Quote

03-25-2014 , 01:47 PM

#31

Gilmour

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2013 Posts: 3,930

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fritz1

Villain will be taking down the pot with a c-bet only if you check/fold. If you donk and he has missed, he will likely fold, with or without the lead.

I'll look for the Vernon thread.

As i said: that wont happen close to how often you will have to check and fold to the last aggressors C-bet because of his percived stronger range.

The post from "callmevernon" i was talking about is in this thread of course, just to clearify that

Quote

03-25-2014 , 01:58 PM

#32

Fritz1

grinder

Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 461

Quote:

Originally Posted by CallMeVernon

Semi-grunch:

In my opinion, it mostly has to do with hand reading, but I think by asking this question, you're severely underestimating the importance of hand reading.

This question reminds me of a hand I played the very first time I tried 2/5. I was in the blinds with AQ and someone made it $30 to go from LP. I called and we were heads-up to the flop.

The flop came Q22.

Now here is the problem I had. Suppose that I had raised from MP and the guy in LP had just called (so the position situation is roughly the same). On this flop, because he did not 3bet me, I can be almost assured that my hand is good here. He wouldn't have called with very many 2x hands, AND he would have 3bet me with AA/KK/QQ. So at 100 big blinds, I can actually commit my stack.

But in the situation I had, of calling his raise, I have to be concerned that if he gets stacks in, part of his range for doing that is AA/KK/QQ, and I am going to be beat more often if stacks go in. It may still not be often enough that I'm not committed (in fact in this hand I thought he'd be bluffing often enough to make it worthwhile to call down), but it's easy to imagine other situations where someone else having the lead means their range as a whole is stronger and you have to change your play to adjust for that.

I understand all of this and agree. It is a great example of analyzing the action to put your opponent on a hand.

Quote

03-25-2014 , 02:05 PM

#33

Fritz1

grinder

Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 461

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilmour

As i said: that wont happen close to how often you will have to check and fold to the last aggressors C-bet because of his percived stronger range.

You check and fold because the totality of information you have in this hand indicates that you are more likely behind than ahead, and because you missed, and because you are out of position. Not because "he has the lead so I should therefore check to him and fold if he bets."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gilmour

The post from "callmevernon" i was talking about is in this thread of course, just to clearify that

Yep, caught that. :-)

Quote

03-25-2014 , 02:12 PM

#34

Triplerangemerge22

grinder

Join Date: Sep 2013 Posts: 417

Initiative puts villain on the defensive. It allows you to rep a stronger range. It often forces villain to play fit or fold and check fold flop when they miss

Quote

Page 2 of 2

First

1 2

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 2 of 2

First

1 2

Last