the thing is we get value from draws too, so leading the flop accomplishes getting value from draws.

if we check we risk everyone else checking along and we miss value and don't protect our hand.

I think putting another raise in and getting money in is fine if you are ok riding the variance train. It's definately not a bad play as you are more than likely a favorite, the problem is if you do so and get both to call and a 4th club turns you might all of a sudden find yourself pot stuck. Against bad/drunk players on boards like this you are going to go through some high variance. I'd rather keep the pot smaller and then build it when we have the effective nuts. Yes we have the effective nuts now, more than likely, but we still have two streets of play left against two guys who have no clue about the game and will get their money in on a FD. I'd much rather get them to do it OTT rather than OTF. You don't even need to c/r the turn, you could maybe over bet lead the pot there (possibly even shove the turn, drunk guy probably comes along). I just take the reduced variance route here is all.

I think you missed my initial post in this thread. My line is to check this flop 1st to act w/5 players. All other comments were directed to those who said the flop should be led out/bet. Does that sound like "I'm entitled to win this hand because I flopped a set?"

I think we all agree this is a hand that requires alot of thought, it's not a simple hand. We need to focus on the basics in our thoughts:
Do we want to get allin?
If we say yes, do we want to get allin on flop or on turn?

My answers: Not unless we have to.
We prefer to get allin on turn.

Is ROT an acronym or are you English?

ROT = results oriented thinking. It's a problem in many poker players have with their thought process. Google it and you'll find a good description.

We agree here. But doesn't this support my argument of checking the flop, not betting out on the flop?

No engwish hair surrr... Brock explained it, now you know.

I read all of your posts again. First you said check. Checking is bad for all the reasons that were discussed. Then you said IF we are going to lead then we need to lead bigger so that we do not bloat the pot... umm that makes no sense but w/e. But the reason you want to bet bigger is to thin the field or take it down right there. It makes no sense to thin the field. If you get called by one person and a 4th club hits your frozen. If you get called by 3 people and a 4th club hits your frozen. If you overbet lead the flop all worse hands fold and draws all of a sudden wont tag along. You get no value from your hand which is more than likely the effective nuts. To me both lines you are taking are scared poker lines. It is ok to reduce variance in spots and pot control, but we still need to take aggressive lines. Hence the old saying, "You cant wait all day for the nuts."



No it doesn't support it. You are checking because you are scared of flushes and possibly having the worse hand, I am leading and then flatting because I dont want to get a huge amount of money in the pot OTF with two cards to come. I am instead getting a huge amount of money in OTT with one card to come in a pot that has been built up and causes them to make an even bigger mistake when they call my big bet or raise. If we 3bet the flop the pot is so big that all of a sudden they are what the bad players like to call, "Pot Commited." Oh too much money in there to fold now. And more than likely there might be with two cards to come. With one card to come they make bigger mistakes, something bad players dont take into consideration.

Instashove to his raise. He has only $140, we are never folding, and we don't want to give any free cards to QXY

Not at all. My first thought when I see this flop is "Pot control". That's why I check flop. Unless I misread you, you seem to agree with pot control on the flop but your way of doing it is to bet/lead out into 4 villains. I hate to put words in your mouth but you seem to be betting for value at the same time as practicing pot control. This can be OK, but it's difficult (and IMO) not advisable 1st to act on a flop like this. You have to expect to get raised here IMO.

Pot control: one the most over used and mis-understood concepts in NLHE

Read this: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/78...inally-361988/

Also, why do we have to expect to get raised? And is it a bad thing if a horrible player raises?

since its limped he can have some weird flush, i just flat.

the bet on the flop is correct though. now we just gotta hope were good and a blank hits the turn, or if were behind we can improve to a full house.

So....What happened next?

While I don't run as bad as Sammy, I run pretty bad in these situations.

Some idiot will have been slow playing JJ if I was playing about 80% of the time.