I'
m not saying cbetting the
flop is bad - but I'
m tempted to consider that it might not be good. Do this:
List the entire hand
range you would make the pre-
flop bet with and for each hand in the
range consider if it hits the
flop. For each hand list what kind of hand it makes (
set,
overpair,
underpair,
TPNK,
TPGK,
TPTK, two par,
flush draw,
gutshot,
OESD, combinations of the above). Consider how big a percentage of your hand
range hits the
flop. Basically do an ABCD
range analysis of your
range on the
flop.
I suspect that your opening
range in this
position only quite rarely hits this
flop. This would suggest that you need a relatively low ratio of bluffs to value bets. This brings me to the question: What would a bet with 77 be here? A bet for value? A bet as a
bluff? A bet as protection? Do you want to build a big pot OOP with a hand that has bad
reverse implied odds? I
don't think a bet with 77 on the
flop is for value, simply because I
don't see many hands that 77 beats that would
call you. It would be something of a
bluff, and I'
m not sure I agree with putting a
bluff out when you cannot realistically represent having hit the board and when the opponent hasn't indicated to you yet whether he has. What you have on the
flop is naked
showdown value imo.
Because you're OOP and not hitting your
set - and because I think the
flop doesn't hit your
range so you cannot realistically represent it - I think checking the
flop is just fine. When the
villain checks
back he reveals weakness and in view of that the
turn bet I think is ok. You are representing a
random J (like AJ, KJ, QJ, JT, J9) that just hit and any weak hand that is not a J would be inclined to
fold.
In the absence of the 7 on the
river a
flop plan of c/f, b/f, c/f seems sensible. Given the 7 on the
river changing
river action to b/f seems sensible. After the
flop I
don't want to put too much money in on a weak made
pair.