I feel like I have gotten to the point where I'm pretty comfortable with my game (mainly PLO8). I still make plenty of mistakes and misplay plenty of hands, but that problem is solved with time, analysis, discussion, etc. -- that's all stuff that I can easily do and am doing (though I can certainly do more of this).

So lately, I have been trying to figure out how to take my game to "the next level" (sorry for using such a cliche term, yuck), and I have been thinking a lot about styles. Reading a lot of high-stakes NL HE posts and observing a lot of those high-stakes NL HE games has made me realize more than ever before that many different styles can win.

Anyway, I was browsing the 2+2 archives and came across a brilliant nugget from Izmet Fekali (one of the best [online] players in the world from several years ago).

Someone posted a question for a generic limit HE situation, where you open on the button with ace-rag, e.g. A-7, the big blind defends, and checks to you on a very dry flop, e.g. A-8-8. The question was, should you check or should you bet? The OP felt that checking was correct, and explained his reasoning in what can be boiled down to today's modern and way overused term, wa/wb. David Sklansky agreed, and then Izmet chimed in:

--

"I am very aware of the pros in David's (and yours) thinking, I often rope-a-dope a lone opponent in these situations (non-vulnerable hand, smallish pot), especially when she (see Izmet taking a stroll thru PC land) shows some strength preflop.

However, there are very important issues to consider here. I have been taught very early that it is not that important how one plays a hand in certain situation but how well one balances one's plays. In other words, do not lose your awareness of the bigger picture.

In this sense, if one plans to steal on similar flops, one needs to bet out with the goods too."

--

Wow. Something quite obvious that a lot of us have definitely thought about and even said before, but it's said so eloquently here. Does this blow everyone away as much as it did to me?

Aseem

Good post. Doesn't really blow me away because this is something that I strive to do already anyway. If I flop a hand like top set in a HU post I almost always bet the flop. If my opponent folds, I'll show my hand every now and then too. Like Izmet says, we'll get no respect when we bluff if we don't bet our good hands also.

Metagame implications aside, I think it's more likely that good regulars at the game i play at will c/r with me with less than an ace if i bet the flop than it is that they'll put a bet in on future streets with a worse hand if i check behind.

Checking behind on a completely dry ace high flop is virtually ALWAYS a hand that you want to take to showdown. It is too likely for your opponent to fold to NOT bet if you have something that completely missed, or something that is vulnerable. The only reason to not bet is because you think that they'll fold a hand that you want them to call with. And the only hands that fit that description is an ace+, or a big pair like QQ or KK.


Against bad or unknown players it's worthwhile. If they pair on the turn, they'll often end up putting 2 bets in which is really what the point of checking with the ace here is.

aseem, shhhh, don't give away the secrets.

Eh, you guys are focusing way too much on the specific situation, which is pretty trivial. Maybe the general advice is not as mind-blowing as I thought it was. =/

Aseem

Hmmm. Get value out of every hand. Hmmm.

lol....

I like that general premise, OP. Keep your play on the bluffs consistent with your play on legit made hands, so that you don't give any cues. A lot of players don't quite have this down, and they quickly give themselves away when they do bluff or when they have a made hand.

EDIT : I don't have anything to contribute, great post OP

the point of the thread is not whether or not we should bluff on which boards IMO. it's about being conscious of the way our actions are percieved around the table. it's about being knowing what signals you're giving off to others, which many give unconsciously.

for example one may use this type of thinking to determine if a bluff against a high level thinking opponent will work. maybe thinking "could i have the queen here? are my actions consistent w/ having a queen here? is this a spot where i would typically value bet? how much would i value bet if i had the queen?" i think the point is to be aware of yourself as much as your opponents.

Yes, NavyButtons is closest to understanding what I found in this -- Izmet teaches us to, in his own words, really be constantly aware of THE BIG PICTURE. One hand can be played in any possible way, as long as it fits within the big picture. I think all of us obsess too much over each little hand, when the best and most successful players reach the poker stratosphere by focusing less on the details and more on the big picture.

Aseem

I got that. That was the point of my post. As the OP is saying, don't line read, but see and maintain the big picture.

I think this is pretty basic metagame stuff. I always bet the flop in this situation for pretty much that same reason.

i think metagame is actually overused or sometimes poorly considered by decent/good players actually.

for someone regularly playing in mid/high games with either thinking opponents, or seeing the same ones consistently, this does not apply to them. my point is that a lot of times you are in either an extremely unusual situation, a situation that would be difficult to accurately apply to another one, or you are simply not playing against someone who will apply it to a future situation. in these cases, metagame should simply not apply, and yet good players often act as if it does.

My second point is that in situations like this, betting is not necessarily correct because it forces you to bet every time. that's fine, since most of us bet this flop every single time. however if you check here, without a "monster" hand (like 8x or AA), then you can also not only check with a monster hand, but even with a nothing hand, and in all situations, raise the turn. i don't want to be too specific about this situation, but there are a lot of situations where we use metagame into playing a hand the same way every time, which is at worst, a small mistake. however, as good, thinking players, we should have the ability to mix things around, which might mean slowplaying non-monster hands, etc.

sorry if this is convoluted, but its something i've been thinking a lot about recently. i've been playing 1/2 NL at my casino, and at first, tried to use a lot of my metagame strategy, since i'm used to playing limit against consistent opponents. however i realized that i should be applying metagame only very occasionally to this game, which i play rarely, often run into unusual situations, and against unthinking opponents.

Actually, I do like that check and raise the turn line with air occasionally. Against stubborn opponents, it doesn't work, and usually I only use it when I was multi-tabling and forgot I was in position on the flop, but it's pretty effective if you use it once every 1,000 hands or so.