The idea behind this play is to increase your probability of winning the pot when it's quite large. If you somehow knew that you were going to win it anyway, then you would certainly want to bet on the flop, and that's what you seem to be showing here.

However, with the flop texture of J97 and two hearts, this is certainly a candidate for the flop check since you're so likely to get lots of calls on the flop by marginal hands that will be getting the right odds to drawout on you for one bet on both the flop and the turn.

MM

I just gave an example hand that I played this way more because of this thread than that it was the ideal spot.

In addition, you also seem to be missing the purpose of this play which is that when the pot has become very large it becomes more important to increase your probability of winning it than collecting extra bets, and that's because the process of collecting extra bets usually lowers your probability of winning the pot.

I agree that getting the most bets in with the best hand is frequently good strategy, but it's certainly not always the case. And one of those times when it's not the case is when the pot has become very large and many of your opponents will be correct to call with marginal hands that they are likely to have which have the potential to draw out on your holding.

MM

Isn't this the discussion in a nutshell? Is it more important to increase your probability of winning a big pot than collecting more bets? HPFAP does stress the concept of increasing your probability of winning big pots. If you use this concept when you have TPTK then it only follows that you should also include hands like the OP posted. BTW Mason, I don't believe you should have posted your AA hand. It seemed to me to weaken your argument.

In cases where the pot is very large players will call the flop with many bd hands and small pairs with weak kickers. In a large multi way pot, If the original raiser is last to bet and checks it is a given that someone will take a shot on the turn and bet out trying to win the pot. This allows the play to work in many cases and should have the desired effect of improving ones probability of winning.

If your goal is to improve your odds of winning the pot, turn your King face up before you bet. This will likely get you some folds.

Mason,

I think the problem that dosxx, jon_locke and myself are having with your line of argument is that it's circular. Your argument depends on your argument for evidence. Listen: we all agree that when the pot gets big, we should try to maximize our chances of winning it. We just question the underlying assumptions you are making about the way people are going to act after we check back the flop.

I think you missed the point of my hand example. It wasn't: "hey look, Mason! I won a bi pot!" The important point was that once I had reason to believe the turn action was going to come from my right, I delayed my action until the turn. So actually I applied the same concept you are talking about; I just applied it less haphazardly. I feel as though I'm talking in circles and parroting here, but the more likely the turn action is to come from our right, the more we should delay our action; however, when we have no clue where or if the action will come, we should be betting.

The three of us combined have played perhaps 4 million hands of winning mid/high lhe on the Internet. Plus we've all played live mid/high successfully since Black Friday. While these facts don't make our assumption and conclusions correct, they should make you have pause about the validity of your claims when all three of us come to similar conclusions independently. Moreover it explains why we're demanding more evidence from you rather than taking your claims at face value.

I think doing this might actually decrease your chances of winning the pot. Especially in the case of the OP's hand.

If I may add a bit of evidence to Mason's position. I have not played anywhere near a million hands of poker but I did play seven years of winning mid limit poker in Las Vegas during the last decade. In my experience big pots checked on the flop almost without fail get bet by someone other than the original raiser if he is last to act and checks the flop. It does not seem to matter where the bet comes from if the original raiser then raises even if some players have called one bet they WILL fold. Some of you Internet players may not see this happen a lot but in B&M casinos it happens a lot.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your position is that when the PFR checks the flop and someone bets then the PFR raises on the turn, everyone folds?

No not everyone. As with everything it depends. When I do it, I get good to mediocre players that know me to fold a lot, even if they have called one bet on the turn because I have an image that is given some degree of respect. It usually amazes me when players fold after calling one bet but it happens. The objective with this play is to reduce the field and improve the probability of winning the pot. In my experience it does just that.

I actually think this may be kind of an online vs live argument. Im a live player, and Marston is right, when the pre flop raiser checks behind in a big pot when it looks like hes going to bet, someone else almost always leads on the turn. Now whether or not thats solid enough evidence to help out Masons arguement is beyond me. I cant imgaine checking AK on a K62 board when 4 people check to me, but Im assuming Mason Malmuth knows more about LHE than me and Im willing to hear both sides.

I don't think it's a live vs online issue at all. The fact that someone is probably going to bet the turn is pretty obvious. We're in a bloated multiway pot for gods sake! The more relavant question is: where will the action come from and will that allow us to face the field with two bets. The answer is we have no idea.

I just wanted to be involved in this discussion to be honest

I want in, too

It certainly would be nice if the bet came late but it is irrelevant to the play here. If the bet comes early and everyone calls there is no rule that says you must raise. You make this play because you want to give yourself the best shot at accomplishing your goal of thinning the field. Mason is right that in a big pot there is very little chance anyone will fold for a small bet. But faced with a big bet and the possibility of a raise is another matter. Even If the bet comes from ep on the turn the players between the bettor and preflop raiser have a tough decision. And as I have mentioned before some players will call an early bettor on the turn and then fold to a raise from the original raiser. The reason for this is that they feel that the early bettor doesn't have much and is trying to buy the pot so they will call with over cards, small pairs with a live kicker, gut shots with an over card etc but when the raise comes in they reassess and usually conclude they have too much to overcome so they will fold. Usually, as I said, some good to mediocre players that respect the raiser will play this way.

I am definitely not an expert like the three of you, but add my 0.5Mil hands to the pool... I totally agree with this post.

You talk about players getting folds with this line Because they get respect( yet I would never even consider folding a pair here to. Player that I respected) I would consider it agaisnt the multiple players that I have seen check top set in that spot.

What about checking back a hand like black aces on a kj3 all heart flop?

The other assumption here is that getting someone to fold has more value, if they even fold. We can hand wave the "getting someone to fold is worth a lot in a bloated pot". Sure, if the best draw would fold, that's huge. He won't. If we we get someone sharing outs with a better draw to fold, that's worth zero. At the same time, by checking the flop, we miss getting to b/3b the best hand, and we also miss the chance to tell a reasonable story for our turn bluff.

On the "assumes he knows more about live LHE than me", I think I'd go with OnTheRail15 and DosXX. Sure, both of them were high stakes online pros. However more recently than Mason, both have played mid/high stakes live as pros. If we're going to appeal to authority, recent credentials-wise we're going to have trouble doing much better than those two. The whole point of the forum is to learn by making reasoned arguments back and forth. Thus, you don't need credentials, you need math.

How many villains with what ranges? Is that an example of our having the most likely current leading hand?

I agree totally with this. Do not I assume that I know a lot about poker. I also came here to discuss and learn. I share my experience and position on strategy and that's all. I have a lot of B&M experience at mid limit. But I agree that math trumps experience. I make this play because of the logic of the play. The arguments of getting the wrong people to fold to me does not hold even though that will happen. You want independent outs to fold and this gives you the best chance of doing that. The math is bets missed vs bets gained by playing this way. You really smart math guys may be able to set ranges for this and that would be helpful. But honestly, even though I am also a firm believer in betting the best hand I agree with Mason on this one. I think he and Sklansky should defend this with some math.

Would you fold a pair on the flop to one bet in a big pot? Are you saying that you would only fold a pair on the turn to a player that checks top set in this scenario? Would you fold that pair on the turn after a flop check to one bet getting 6 or 7 to one? To two bets on the turn from random players including the original raiser? I never said that all good or mediocre players would fold. I just said they were more likely to fold after calling a bet than a poor player and in my experience this happens quite often.

this thread is awesome.