Hi jdr0317:

I think there’s a misconception here. Using your numbers if you can make $80 in bets with 60 percent equity, that means you win $80 60 percent of the time which is $48 dollars and lose $80 40 percent of the time which is $32. Together, this produces an expectation of +16.

Now there were 20 small bets in the pot preflop which is $400, and let’s suppose you’re able to increase your probability of winning the pot by 10 percent. That’s equivalent to $40 in expectation, and $40 is certainly better than $16.

Best wishes,
Mason

No amount of quoting dusty tomes will ever get me think checking this flop is the best play. It amazes me this many characters have been spent arguing the point.

I’m flabbergasted by that as well. Seems much more agreggious than when jl basically didn’t misrepresent what mason said.

Against some hands like King-rag, we decrease our chances of winning the pot. Also, if it gets checked to us again on the turn and it's only one bet then we decrease our chanced to win the pot. That's why the clearest course of action is to bet the flop so that the airballs that can beat us don't beat us. Raising the turn to shut people out to decrease their chances of winning the pot would have to offset these problems. I am not sure how important it is really that we hold the jacks as far as card removal goes, because QJ is not leaving the pot anyway, even for two bets on the turn with a gutter and over... but they might leave on the turn for two. So, it seems like the ONLY hand that is powerful enough to do this play is AA (preferrably the ones that block the bdfd, so if they have an A they won't likely turn a fd). It's too big of a disaster if a king falls, and it's a disaster enough that's it's difficult to raise the turn with JJ when a K falls. So, I think the only hand that I'd think about doing this with is AdAc (on a 9d8d3c board blocking both bdfd).

And even so, w/ AA, say a K falls, as Captain R points out, it might just get checked again, because it's an action freezer. So, I don't think I like it here even w/ AA. JJ faces too many bad turns that will nearly kill the hand, or freeze the action. So this play just will not work with JJ.

Side note. It's bad to just call three though, and start a calling three range IMHO because you should 4bet or fold pre and calling 3bet cold means you're starting to give away too much information about your hand, imo. In other spots from the blinds I might make a call three line, but not against a straddle and someone who's quite possibly raising three bets light.

I decided to start running some sims to bring more math to this conversation. Using the ranges I assigned (pre-flop raiser gets 22%, straddle any 2, overlimper 35% and bb gets a wideish 45%) jj should have about 36% equity on the flop

hero's equity falls below 36% equity on any 6,7,q,k a or spade
A is a drastic decrease, and all broadway cards damage hero equity signfigantly

5,9, and t can also be viewed as somewhat 'static' cards where hero's equity improves only narrowly

Having the j of spades (not specified in op) is meaningful to calculations

What conclusions can we draw from this? Well the best cards for hero on the turn are j, 3, 8, 4 and 2
Other than turning top set, is planning to raise any turn lead really that profitable a play? If raising the turn is a high-variance play can we really justify a flop check? The profitability behind betting the flop is extremely easy to prove so why would we abandon this low-hanging fruit.

You shouldn't without a strong reason not to. There are too many bad turns, all of which will potentially foil the plan of eliminating the field by freezing the action if they do not destroy your hand to begin with.

He quoted back jl's entire post. Don't know how you guys think it was misrepresented unless he actually edited the quote.

Because he said Jon wanted to convince people of his point of view without any explanation. Since he quoted the whole post and wrote a million words trying to refute it, he should realize that Jon did in fact provide an explanation for why checking back the flop with jacks is horrible (it is).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Anyway, I think Captain R's post does a good job of breaking down the problem. If a K or Q lands, your hand is, I think, not even good enough to raise, and if an A comes you'd just have to fold it. If the board pairs a 9, it's still not good. Even a club will freeze the action or beat you. Too many cards will freeze the action or beat you. As with many of these types of hands, it seems like the conditions have to be like 100% perfect for it to work bordering on an unwitting partner, or a cooperative dealer. There is TONS of CHAOS in limit poker. So you have to outline each element of CHAOS before trying this. You can't control which pots you're going to win much of the time. And loose opponents are among the ones that are least predictable.

MAYBE with AA, and the Ac (redraw card, and blocker), you might meet Captain R's criteria to try this check. I still wouldn't though because there are just too many turns that would freeze the action.

Mason said Jon was trying to precondition readers by calling something horrible without explanation. While Jon did provide a lengthy explanation, he did use the words terrible and horrible prior to the explanation. Maybe Mason should have said "before explanation" instead of "without explanation", but I understand what he meant there. Not sure if the preconditioning really works or was even attempted, but I think the criticism was fair. Personally I think this forum would be a better place if people didn't use terms like terrible or horrible in strategy posts, although I may have been guilty of using them in the past myself as well.

I️ know you do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

While I can see this as "poisoning the well", I think JL merely points out, "This well is poison. Here's why." which I think is completely fine.

Nothing was misrepresented unless I misunderstood something. Can you be specific?

Mason

Hi chillrob:

This is exactly right. jon_locke begins his post with the words "WHY CHECKING JJ HERE IS JUST TERRIBLE:" and I'm saying that's a problem.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi leaves:

That would certainly be better. All jon_locke needs to do is state why he thinks the strategy I advocate reduces expectation instead of increasing it as I claim. That can make for very interesting debate. But when he begins his posts with the words "WHY CHECKING JJ HERE IS JUST TERRIBLE:," it seems to me that he doesn't want to debate anything.

Best wishes,
Mason

OTR15 was referring to your clause. "without any explanation as to why you think your approach is best" Not sure if bicyclekick was referring to the same thing, but I assumed he was.

If Jon told me something I️ did in Poker was terrible, and he has, I️ would try to figure out why it was terrible, not get offended by the form his criticism takes. Most of the improvements I’ve made in Poker are because someone good told me something I️ did or thought was awful/terrible/horrendous.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, he started his post with "WHY CHECKING JJ HERE IS JUST TERRIBLE:" I bet that some readers never get past this point.

And why don't you consider what I wrote which was a specific answer to all of jon_locke's points.

Mason

Why do you think I️ didn’t?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But you seem to be someone who's getting offended, and this can be seen by your many nasty posts directed towards me in these threads. I've been around poker much longer than you have and have had many conversations similar to those you describe and in my writings have often referenced those who have helped me understand things better. So what's your point?

If you notice, there's almost no discussion relative to the size of the pot by the critics of this strategy, yet a large pot is the foundation for these ideas. Why is that?

MM

I️ am not offended and have made zero nasty posts. Unless by nasty you mean critical. Is that against your tos as well?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because I've been reading your posts that have been directed towards me in these threads. It's really a shame how negative discussion has become on the Internet and unfortunately this negativity is now well represented on our forums. Your posts are just another example.

MM

Maybe if you try really hard you can excise negative and critical posters like jonlocke and myself from these forums.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here's a few of your recent posts:

(directed at chillrob) (directed at chillrob) This is the first time I've ever looked at some of your posts. It's a shame you have this negative side because much of what you post is well worthwhile.

MM

Once again MM, calling a play "terrible", "awful", "really bad", or whatever negative term is not the same as calling a person "terrible", "awful", etc.

Nobody calls each other those words, that would be a personal insult.

Those are only used to describe a decision point. If someone chose to fold AA preflop, there is nothing wrong with calling that strategy choice "terrible/awful/horrible". It is not a statement about the person, I'm sure we have all made terrible plays in poker at one time or another.