Quote:
Originally Posted by nicoye64
What if you feel relatively sure that you won't see the river card if you check, that someone will bet behind you. In that case, is it ever better to lead out semi bluff so you can set your own price?
If there is a high probability that villain will bet big on the turn if you check to him, then you can try making a so-called "blocker bet" for a smaller size to "set your own price".
If there is a decent chance that villain will check the turn and give you a free river, that would generally be even better for you. It's just a maths problem. Estimate villain's bet-size and betting frequency, multiply them and compare to the block-betting size you're planning to use.
e.g. Suppose there are three possibilities, you lead small, or you check and villain either bets bigger or checks.
1. You lead the turn for 400 100% of the time. The price of seeing a river is 400 when you take this line.
2. You check the turn and villain bets 600 60% of the time and checks back 40% of the time. The average price of seeing a river is (60%*600) + (40%*0)= 360.
With the above numbers, you'd see a river more cheaply on average by checking (360) than by betting (400). If villain's bet-size or betting frequency increased, the price would go up. e.g. If he bet 700 at the same 60% frequency, the price would average at 420, and if he bet 600 at 80% frequency it would be .8*600 = 480. Block-betting for 400 would be "cheaper" than checking in those cases.
If your block bet would actually take down the pot sometimes, you can factor that in too. I don't think you have much/any fold equity in this particular example though. You had more hand equity and fold equity on the flop, and a check-shove there puts much more pressure on your opponents.