|
|
 Originally Posted by Fnord
Originally Posted by Aceofone
I would definately pick A).
-because im going to be the aggressor
Interesting. If you're 90% certain your opponent is going to bet a particular board reguardless of what's in his hole, are you better off betting into him or letting him put more chips in the pot first?
There is a high value being the aggressor, but at what point does it become more about getting more chips into the pot when you have a likely best hand?
If you are that certain that your opponent is going to bet i believe the right play is to lead into him. Even if you are 50% certain you should still lead into him. Most of the time he will reraise a ton trying to push you out. so if you flop something solid just lead right into him and alot of the time he will just go all in and pay you off. Even if you lead out and he folds you still have won a pot and helped your table image. If you check you are opening the door for a whole potential of bad situations. you are giving him the option of a free card that may hurt you. Or he may jsut bet out, then once you reraise he might throw it away. Your initial bet looks alot weeker then a reraise of his and is therefore a better way to get him to push it all in the middle. Doyle Brunson talks about this in super system and says he always leads into the raiser with a great hand because he wants to win that all in pot instead of a small bet.
|
Reply With Quote