Of course I've heard of betting to avoid being bluffed... I just think it's a massive leak.
If we bet to stop people bluffing, we put ourselves in spots like the one you mention - betting KK on an Ace-high flop. As you say, we're not going to be called by many worse hands, so the value of our bet is likely to be negative. If we check, it's up to us to know whether we're going to be bluffed enough of the time to make the call down.
Betting, though, gives us a situation where we can never make more money, only lose the value of our bet. We also lose the value of bluff-catching and we may still be bluffed on later streets if the villain can float us. Albeit, it may be tough to catch bluffs when we're out of position like this with an underpair. That's just the disadvantage of being OOP. As long as we have some idea of the villain's range we should be able to make better decisions.
In the hand in question, I can only commit to a particular action based upon reads on the villain. In the absence of reads, I could give a specific suggestion based on what I think is most likely in a vacuum, which I did.
We shouldn't be giving advice to do XYZ regardless of reads, though.
As for shoving 100% of your range here, well I've said repeatedly why I think that's bad.
You may well balance your range if you always do this, but you're missing a ton of value every time you get the villain to fold when you have a big hand. You also stack off unnecessarily when you don't have a massive hand.
A much better way to balance your range is to make the most exploitative action in this hand, then remember the line you took the next time you're in a similar situation with this villain. So if you check-fold here with the AK, check next time you're in a similar situation with AA.
Of course I've heard of betting to avoid being bluffed... I just think it's a massive leak. --- LOL
its not were trying to stop ppl bluffing us its all situational--
and yes we shouldnt be giving advise to do XYZ regardless of reads says the person who write 100 line essays in responce to the hand-
my analysis is directly based on the information provided and to the situation ive seen- in this hand we have 3bet (given SS behind, i wouldn't have done this) and only have a PSB behind- this definalty isnt bad- ???!!!??
Comments
If we bet to stop people bluffing, we put ourselves in spots like the one you mention - betting KK on an Ace-high flop. As you say, we're not going to be called by many worse hands, so the value of our bet is likely to be negative. If we check, it's up to us to know whether we're going to be bluffed enough of the time to make the call down.
Betting, though, gives us a situation where we can never make more money, only lose the value of our bet. We also lose the value of bluff-catching and we may still be bluffed on later streets if the villain can float us. Albeit, it may be tough to catch bluffs when we're out of position like this with an underpair. That's just the disadvantage of being OOP. As long as we have some idea of the villain's range we should be able to make better decisions.
In the hand in question, I can only commit to a particular action based upon reads on the villain. In the absence of reads, I could give a specific suggestion based on what I think is most likely in a vacuum, which I did.
We shouldn't be giving advice to do XYZ regardless of reads, though.
As for shoving 100% of your range here, well I've said repeatedly why I think that's bad.
You may well balance your range if you always do this, but you're missing a ton of value every time you get the villain to fold when you have a big hand. You also stack off unnecessarily when you don't have a massive hand.
A much better way to balance your range is to make the most exploitative action in this hand, then remember the line you took the next time you're in a similar situation with this villain. So if you check-fold here with the AK, check next time you're in a similar situation with AA.