I really think this is an underrated strategy in no limit hold 'em. Take the following hand as an example:

Party Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $ BB (6 max, 5 handed) FTR converter on zerodivide.cx

SB ($1039.25)
BB ($420.45)
Hero ($1783.69)
MP ($1114.10)
Button ($256.52)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with [Ac], [Qs]. SB posts a blind of $3.
Hero raises to $20, BB calls $14.

Flop: ($63) [Ks], [Qd], [4c] (3 players)
BB checks, Hero checks, MP bets $60, BB folds, Hero calls $60.

Turn: ($183) [5c] (2 players)
Hero checks, MP bets $200, Hero calls $200.

River: ($583) [5s] (2 players)
Hero checks, MP bets $475, Hero calls $475.

Final Pot: $1533

Results in white below:
Hero has Ac Qs (two pair, queens and fives).
MP has 7d 9d (one pair, fives).
Outcome: Hero wins $1533.

Now, the MP player wasn't a maniac or anything, but I knew that he wouldn't bet the full size of the pot with a real hand after everyone had checked like that. I was a little bit shaken on the river, but I stuck with the read and it paid off. I know from this post I look like a total calling station, but I really think I was ahead the majority of the time here.

Thoughts?

Not betting this flop doesnt make much sense unless you have a read that MP bluffs at raised pots when it gets checked through.

I think you're putting yourself in a tough spot here by just calling down though having the read that you had makes it a lot better.

It's early so i'll be short. You played that hand poorly. If you thought, which you obviously did, that your queen was good, bet. 9 times out of 10 you're going to get outdrawn. Say for example the guy has 7 5, because you let him bet the whole way he just outdrew you. You played the hand extremely weak, like a half assed trap and I feel bad for you. If you play that bad consistently you're roll is going to evaporate faster than a bums spit on a hot sidewalk.

-GeneralKong

I still don't see anything wrong with the move. I want to play the hand, and I think that with a check, the MP player will bet less if he has a solid hand, and more if he doesn't. The only way he considers taking a free card is if he has no pair, no draw, and if that's the case he has no outs to beat me.

When he makes the $60 pot-size bet, I become convinced that he's trying to push me off the hand, so I call. If I raise, I kill future action when I'm ahead, and commit more money when I'm behind, (even though I'm pretty sure I'm not.)

Then, the turn bet just confirms my suspicion, as he overbets the pot, when I've been showing relative weakness. Again I think I'm ahead. Now, I think it's a pure bluff instead of a semibluff, as I figure he'd slow down and hope to hit his card with something like J-10.

The bet on the river scares me, as I've showed strength now by calling again, and he bets just under the size of the pot this time instead of overbetting, but I still think that there's at least a 40% chance that he's bluffing, giving me odds to call.

It's certainly an unorthodox play, but I don't see any time where it's actually wrong. Reading your opponent and catching a bluff can just be as profitable as hitting a big hand.

I think not raising the flop is a mistake.

If he has a hand like, I dunno, Q5, you're kicking your own ass.

If you had let him catch up, you'd probably be singing a slightly different tune, you know?

I check/raise the flop and evaluate on the turn. If he re-raises the flop I probably fold, since we said he wasn't a maniac.

If he has a hand like Q-5, there's no way in hell that he bets the size of the pot. He bets maybe $30, half-protecting his hand, and half looking for a call. If he made a weak bet, I might have considered a raise, but his bet said "I'M REALLY REALLY STRONG" when it was patently obvious that he wasn't.

The thing is that this isn't a good drawing flop at all. There's no flush draw, and I have the only overcard covered. J-10 is drawing to seven outs, and everything else is pretty much crap. When the examples people of give of why I need to protect my hand are a three-outer and runner-runner, then I really don't think I'm in much danger.

This is a classic WA/WB situation. By checking it, I make my opponent put less money in when I'm ahead, and I make him put in more when I'm behind. When I add in the fact that he's predictable enough so that he won't overbet with a made hand when he's open on the button, it makes the right course of action pretty clear.

Obviously, this isn't a play that you can use multiple times in a session, and I probably won't want to call an overbet without close to the nuts the rest of the way, but in the given situation, I think it's extremely profitable.

There's nothing wrong with trusting your read and letting your opponent bluff at you. I wouldn't try this on a scary board, or even if there were significant overcard outs for my opponents to hit. However, given that I was extremely unlikely to get outdrawn, I don't see any reason that betting or raising would be a better move than check/calling in this situation.

dont like the flop play. if you had bet the flop and he pulled a stop and go, c/c turn c/c river, or consider folding if he is a fairly straightforward player.

you should bet the flop to charge people to catch up, to protect your hand, to find out where you are at, etc.

dont try to induce a bluff on the flop by doing this and then just calling. you get to avoid, "was it a bluff...or does he have me stomped" the next two streets. make postflop decisions easy.

id bet the flop most of the time (80%), sometimes c/r it.

People don't ever bet strong when they're weak? What? I thought it was a tell. You know, acting strong when you're weak. and if his bet said he was really strong, why call him down with second pair?



I don't know why you don't seem to think that people make bad calls and bad bets. What if he has QJ and the J hits?



No, it's really not a WA/WB situation at all. WA/WB behind is a set with three to the flush on the board. Your's is playing second pair passively. Your's is a, "Well, I could be ahead, but I'm not sure. I've called his bet thinking he was extremely strong, so I'm not going to put in a raise to find out."



Depending on table texture.



I thought your read was that your opponent was very strong? He kept betting at it and you still called. This argument holds no water.

I don't know how you miss the fact that raising here is the better play. If you raise on the flop, and he comes over the top, you lay it down because you're beat, and save yourself money on the turn and river. If you raise and he folds, you win the pot.

It seems like your read was incorrect and you want some kind of justification for the play, if I'm off base there, I apologize.

I really think check/calling is only appropriate here against a maniac.

My point was that he was trying really hard to represent strength, not that he was actually strong. If he had a weak queen, he wouldn't need to try really hard to represent strength; he would be reasonably sure that he was ahead of the checks, and not bother risking this amount of money.

If he'd made this bet from first postion, I would have just folded and moved on to the next hand, figuring that he was looking to get called when he had a strong hand. However, the fact that he makes this strong bet after both opponents showed weakness makes me think he doesn't have a pair.

I'd played with him for a while, and I knew he wasn't a "smash" type of player. He changed up his bets according to what he thought would get a call or a fold. If he's betting this strong after two checks, the only likely reason is that he wants a fold.

This is how I read his hand range on the flop:
60% pure bluff
20% semi-bluffing a straight draw
15% something that has me beat
5% a pair that I have beat

Here's the hand range I give him on the turn:
70% pure bluff
22.5% something that has me beat
7.5% a pair that I have beat
5% semi-bluffing with the straight draw

Here's the hand range I give him on the river:
55% bluff
45% something that has me beat

Now given that hand range, I think I played it right on every street. How am I wrong?

One more comment that I just have to quote.



If, "for example, the guy had 7 5," then I'm a 95% favorite. I'll get outdrawn 1 time out of 20, not 9 times out of 10.

Heh.

There's been some stuff in this thread I didn't agree with.

This takes the cake.