|
|
When I put someone on a flush draw I don't necessarily want them to fold. I want to bet as much as they will call that is greater than the max they should call based on pot odds. Implied odds make this a bit more challenging..
Yes, pushing the turn will most likely get the flush draw to fold, probably any hand to fold actually, and we take the pot now. This is fine but isn't it better to continue to give villain incorrect odds that he will still call? +EV? If 2/3 pot is not enough than how about betting pot?
I hate this example, because the real question isn't what should I do on the river, but what should I have done on the turn"
Why allow yourself to get to a river where villain was almost getting odds (real + implied) to call? Villain will either stack you on the river if he hits, or he will fold to any bet if he doesn't hit his flush. I see absolutely no value in letting the hand get to the river in the first place whatsoever.
The value we get by letting this hand get to river is the turn bet villain calls. We risk the flush card hitting but give villain incorrect odds to draw so, therefore, value does exist in not pushing the turn.
You think he is on a flush draw, but you have no read??
I knew someone was gonna say that 
What I mean is you have no strong reads but just get a gut feeling or vibe in this particular hand (probably a leak).
Basically, what I'm saying is that is it not best to always try to extract maximum value out of a hand. If the villain makes a -EV call... it's a -EV call. The problem with this scenario is we get ourselves into hard decisions on the river sometimes, but if we can still play the river correctly often enough to make villain's (pot odds + implied odds) call on turn -EV then we should not push villain out on turn.
I was just trying to see what a good line is on river when this scenario occurs against an unknown.
This is probably the best line against an unknown.
|
Reply With Quote