Quote:
Originally Posted by monikrazy
This flop is a good lead candidate because you do not have a low redraw and your hand is not strong enough for a check-raise, in this situation we are happy to win now
I think this is a solid argument on why this hand is good to be led. IF villain never raises here with a hand we are currently not beating (i.e. we can happily bet-fold) AND we have a leading range, I agree that this is a good hand to lead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by monikrazy
Edit: re amok's range advantage comment, pre-flop raiser range should have more equity on this board than hero defending range BUT I view hero's actual hand as having a small range advantage over villain, thus I prefer a lead
I don't think this is a good approach. Yes, our actual hand is definitely ahead of villain's range, but that shouldn't mean we should be leading IMO. If we start leading when we are ahead of villain's range, we start to have leading ranges in most spots, which will just mess up our ranges and probably cause more trouble than good.
Anyway, I think I understand what you mean. This hand benefits a lot from leading, if certain assumptions are correct. I'd just be very wary of trying to implement something like that into my strategy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caterina
That's a better way to put it.
I don't like check/calling, because what am I going to do on almost any turn? I don't like check/folding, after all, I have a decent made hand and people cbet air often.
Check/raising is imo even worse than check/calling.
You are correct that c/r:ing is just too ambitious for this hand at this depth. With lower SPR we happily c/r ship it in for value/protection. At this depth I think it's purely a protection raise, which doesn't achieve much, especially if villain flats his whole continuing range (which involves a lot of hands that a stronger than our hand).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caterina
I also thought, that having a leading range gives me the option to bluff at certain boards sometimes (eg. 998 rainbow) aswell as getting more value from some of my best hands. I didn't concern myself with balance too much though (what this does to my check/calling range), aside from the fact, I can't really bluff, if I never lead.
You are missing something quite obvious: you can always bluff. When you always start with a check, your bluffs are going to be raises. You don't need to go overboard with the sizing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caterina
Now, both of you make good arguments.
Does any of it change, if we take into consideration that the better players in my games fold on the flop to very small bets pretty often, if they don't connect strongly.
One extreme example (probably a good example of bad balance, too) is this one reg, who actually crushes the game. He simply pots whenever he likes his hand. He gets payed by worse so much that the times, he pots into the better hand don't really matter.
After a while, I started to minbet, whenever he checks to me. He folds more than 80%, no matter the size of the pot.
Yes, it's a good example of bad balance and unstickiness (not sure if that's a word).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caterina
Can't edit anymore, I'm thinking a lot about this and somehow it's getting more and more theoretical.
I'm reminded of Phil Galfond: Poker Philosophy 5 - How to exploit a villain's range
* Having more options available seems to be better than having less options. Thus I think, having a leading range is better than not having a leading range.
* This is offset by the fact, that the range has to be well balanced.
* Since we are out of position, mistakes on our side are more costly than usual, so if more options just means more ways to make mistakes, than not having a leading range is better after all.
In summary: If confidant that we can induce more mistakes with a leading range than we are going to make mistakes, it's better to have one.
A concept like this, is probably too advanced for my level of play. But I should at least work on having a check/raising range which is also non existant right now.
I see nothing wrong with trying some things and sticking to what works, for now. You don't need to play a very theoretical style to beat micro stakes, but at the same time it is important to learn to understand theory, as that will always be the backbone of good play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caterina
I don't like check/calling, because what am I going to do on almost any turn?
OK. I'm a simple player. I don't have a leading range on that board and I don't have a leading range after I have check-called the flop (that is another subject, but the arguments are more or less the same). For our particular hand this strategy is a bit unfortunate, I agree, since we fail to protect our hand (especially when a L turn is checked). You can think of it as a sacrifice for a coherent overall strategy.
Instead of only seeing the downsides (we are not protecting our equity!) try to see the good things that happen when we have such strong hands after check-calling the flop and checking the turn. This also gives us the ability to bluff with the weaker parts of our range on certain runouts.