Quote:
Originally Posted by Discipline
TNixon's post implies that you should bet here, but that it's not essential to give your opponent incorrect odds to call. (He states that "ideally" our opponent doesn't have the odds to call.)
I think you've made an incorrect assumption about why I said "ideally".
The reason I used that word is that sometimes you have a hand that's strong enough that your opponent has very strong implied odds, so sometimes even if you're not giving your opponent the correct direct odds to call, you are actually giving him good overall odds. Obviously villain doesn't know when that's the case, but you can't really be sure what he's going to call with either.
It all gets pretty hairy, and even bets that are primarily intended to charge draws have to serve more than one purpose, because villain obviously has more hands in his range than just draws.
So yes, if your primary intention is to charge draws, then you should always bet enough that they don't have the correct odds to call (and a lot of the time, they will call anyway), but implied odds muddy the water enough that this isn't always possible, because you're betting against a range, not a specific hand.
Obviously, if you know for sure that the three statements you gave are true, then yes, your conclusions hold, although you have to add a fourth statement, that "villain always has a draw".
So I don't think it's really as cut-and-dried as you're trying to make it out to be.
I'll admit, it would really be an easy game if you could always see your opponent's cards though.
Last edited by TNixon; 01-08-2010 at 05:05 PM.