I understand what you're saying and if we are short and by checking the cbet is basically an all in, then yeah, i totally agree with you. However if we're deep i would personally lead a flopped 2 pair hand quite often
I understand what you're saying and if we are short and by checking the cbet is basically an all in, then yeah, i totally agree with you. However if we're deep i would personally lead a flopped 2 pair hand quite often Posted by Jac35
I see this alot actually and I think it's hugely exploitable.
On this hand in particular, rancid's opponent has hit a miracle flop and leads out. Now imagine that rancid was playing AK, AQ, AJ, AT, KQ, etc... rancid folds and his opponent has gained no value at all from his extremely lucky flopped two-pair. When he leads out he needs rancid to also have some sort of hand and he's got super-lucky again that rancid has top-pair. In most circumstances leading out means this player loses value.
On the other hand, if he checks the flop, rancid is almost certain to c-bet whether he's hit or not. That's virtually automatic value.
This donk-bet is made as though it wants rancid to fold because such a huge majority of his range is going to fold. His donk-bet is making it easy for rancid and actually will save rancid the c-bet.
This means a donk-lead with strong hands is especially bad against players who have a wide pre-flop raising range. Against players with a tight pre-flop range, it's also likely to be a losing play in the long-run. Yes, if they've got AA or KK, they'll pay you there full stack when you donk-bet at them, but that's likely to happen when you check to allow them to c-bet anyway. However if they have AK or AQ, then you again lose that value from the c-bet.
You don't get many experienced players advocating a donk-lead very often. The simple reason for this is that most of the time against most opponents a donk-bet is a losing play. The only occasions when donk-bets can be defended is when there is a huge amount of meta-game between the two players. For example; I have done it in the past because I have seen a player habitually raising or even shoving over other players' donk-bets. That's a very specific situation, though, and isn't something you can prescribe as "good play" without those specific reads.
On the other hand, when we see a free flop from the big blind and flop two-pair, leading out can certainly be a good idea. The benefits of that are a whole different story. This isn't donk-betting because in a limped pot there is no pre-flop aggressor.
If you feel there's a flaw in this argument, I'm eager to hear your point of view.
Balance is simple - open the same You don't have to balance this deep in MTT - ever really )
donking 2 pr versus against a pre flop raiser this deep is super bad
only time you ever donk is if you have super tight reads on oppo opening range and know they have a hand - but the majoority of the time is just super bad -
Hard to argue with your post but i'll have a go anyway! If he has nothing we get one bet out of him when we check but most likely he shuts down once we call/raise.
If he checks back or we just call his c bet we allow him to catch up. We're also not narrowing his range down at all. A flopped 2 pair here is highly likely to be ahead but when the turn comes we are most likely going to be a long way from having the nuts and from there on we are just guessing? Bet when we're winning/get full value for our hand?
This is all just debating and totally hypothetical as i wouldn't be in this hand as the big blind and so it's probably a poor example i'm giving.
I'm inclined to agree with you on this specific hand that checking would be best but on a lot of flops that are more likely to have hit my opponents hand then i do believe that bet/bet/bet could extract the most value. I don't think it could be classed as being 'super bad'
Hard to argue with your post but i'll have a go anyway! If he has nothing we get one bet out of him when we check but most likely he shuts down once we call/raise. If he checks back or we just call his c bet we allow him to catch up. We're also not narrowing his range down at all. A flopped 2 pair here is highly likely to be ahead but when the turn comes we are most likely going to be a long way from having the nuts and from there on we are just guessing? Bet when we're winning/get full value for our hand? This is all just debating and totally hypothetical as i wouldn't be in this hand as the big blind and so it's probably a poor example i'm giving. I'm inclined to agree with you on this specific hand that checking would be best but on a lot of flops that are more likely to have hit my opponents hand then i do believe that bet/bet/bet could extract the most value. I don't think it could be classed as being 'super bad' Posted by Jac35
Trying to answer the best I can, first of - we are not first to act so.. bit confused by your questions But if you mean from oppo's point of view and how oppo should play when flopping 2 pr with the lead
Thats another question...
If you flop two pair and your fist to act on the flop versus a pre flop raiser this deep on any board, why lead ?
Do you get folds more or get calls/raises more
to give our oppo a pre flop raising range is cruicial in if we decide to lead, lets say you know oppo open 4x with JJ+ only - then leading may be better as oppo is more likely to call or shove - if you c/r versus overpairs then your playing pretty much face up but on wet boards it could look like a draw But then you have to factor in your perceived pre flop calling range, what does oppo think I call pre and lead flop with or c/r with
if we c/r a wet flop then how does this look to your oppo ? How often does the pre flop raiser c bet ? Not every situation is the same but the best thing to do the majority of the time is to check, let oppo c bet - call again - call turn - oppo should be commited so shove river you could advocate c/r this flop if we were deeper, but that fact we are not - we should NOT be worried about what oppo has WE HAVE TWO PAIRS
2 pr is just massive this deep and you can't just say o oppo may have a draw so I bet, it's totaly negative poker Leading out when you have no idea on oppo range or hand is nonsense, your going to see so many folds when checking will get you so many more chipets
I have just written at least 500 wordds in response to your post Jac35... then this stupid thing jumps up in front of it and won't go away:
Message
The £5,000 Rebuy Open at 8pm is tonight's pick for you all! Players start with 2000 chips and the blinds increase every 12 minutes. £11 buy-in? We must be going mad!
Donk betting is bad in this hand Donk betting not always bad imo, even though I don't do it basically ever, it has advantages in certain situations. Tough to balance though Posted by grantorino
Lol,
3 lines and perfectly explains what i was trying to say in a number of rambling posts.
Just offering a different perspective and interesting to hear others views on leading when in villains position.
I think both Rancid and Borinloner have pretty well covered reasons for not doing it.
Comments
However if we're deep i would personally lead a flopped 2 pair hand quite often
On this hand in particular, rancid's opponent has hit a miracle flop and leads out. Now imagine that rancid was playing AK, AQ, AJ, AT, KQ, etc... rancid folds and his opponent has gained no value at all from his extremely lucky flopped two-pair. When he leads out he needs rancid to also have some sort of hand and he's got super-lucky again that rancid has top-pair. In most circumstances leading out means this player loses value.
On the other hand, if he checks the flop, rancid is almost certain to c-bet whether he's hit or not. That's virtually automatic value.
This donk-bet is made as though it wants rancid to fold because such a huge majority of his range is going to fold. His donk-bet is making it easy for rancid and actually will save rancid the c-bet.
This means a donk-lead with strong hands is especially bad against players who have a wide pre-flop raising range. Against players with a tight pre-flop range, it's also likely to be a losing play in the long-run. Yes, if they've got AA or KK, they'll pay you there full stack when you donk-bet at them, but that's likely to happen when you check to allow them to c-bet anyway. However if they have AK or AQ, then you again lose that value from the c-bet.
You don't get many experienced players advocating a donk-lead very often. The simple reason for this is that most of the time against most opponents a donk-bet is a losing play. The only occasions when donk-bets can be defended is when there is a huge amount of meta-game between the two players. For example; I have done it in the past because I have seen a player habitually raising or even shoving over other players' donk-bets. That's a very specific situation, though, and isn't something you can prescribe as "good play" without those specific reads.
On the other hand, when we see a free flop from the big blind and flop two-pair, leading out can certainly be a good idea. The benefits of that are a whole different story. This isn't donk-betting because in a limped pot there is no pre-flop aggressor.
If you feel there's a flaw in this argument, I'm eager to hear your point of view.
You don't have to balance this deep in MTT - ever really )
donking 2 pr versus against a pre flop raiser this deep is super bad
only time you ever donk is if you have super tight reads on oppo opening range and know they have a hand - but the majoority of the time is just super bad -
If he has nothing we get one bet out of him when we check but most likely he shuts down once we call/raise.
If he checks back or we just call his c bet we allow him to catch up.
We're also not narrowing his range down at all.
A flopped 2 pair here is highly likely to be ahead but when the turn comes we are most likely going to be a long way from having the nuts and from there on we are just guessing?
Bet when we're winning/get full value for our hand?
This is all just debating and totally hypothetical as i wouldn't be in this hand as the big blind and so it's probably a poor example i'm giving.
I'm inclined to agree with you on this specific hand that checking would be best but on a lot of flops that are more likely to have hit my opponents hand then i do believe that bet/bet/bet could extract the most value.
I don't think it could be classed as being 'super bad'
But if you mean from oppo's point of view and how oppo should play when flopping 2 pr with the lead
Thats another question...
If you flop two pair and your fist to act on the flop versus a pre flop raiser this deep on any board, why lead ?
Do you get folds more or get calls/raises more
to give our oppo a pre flop raising range is cruicial in if we decide to lead, lets say you know oppo open 4x with JJ+ only -
then leading may be better as oppo is more likely to call or shove - if you c/r versus overpairs then your playing pretty much face up but on wet boards it could look like a draw
But then you have to factor in your perceived pre flop calling range, what does oppo think I call pre and lead flop with or c/r with
if we c/r a wet flop then how does this look to your oppo ?
How often does the pre flop raiser c bet ?
Not every situation is the same but the best thing to do the majority of the time is to check, let oppo c bet - call again - call turn - oppo should be commited so shove river
you could advocate c/r this flop if we were deeper, but that fact we are not - we should NOT be worried about what oppo has
WE HAVE TWO PAIRS
2 pr is just massive this deep and you can't just say o oppo may have a draw so I bet, it's totaly negative poker
Leading out when you have no idea on oppo range or hand is nonsense, your going to see so many folds when checking will get you so many more chipets
readless = check
I am rabbling a bit bye bye
Message
3 lines and perfectly explains what i was trying to say in a number of rambling posts.
Just offering a different perspective and interesting to hear others views on leading when in villains position.
I think both Rancid and Borinloner have pretty well covered reasons for not doing it.
I'll retire from this now