Intuitively, in Texas Hold'em poker it seems that checker or monitor is the best way to keep a small pot when you're not sure of whether or not the best hand. And it is often the case. But believe it or not, bet you can afford to reach the showdown * chips for less than if you check.
If your goal is to control the size of the pot, your bet tokens can voluntarily help you keep a small pot instead of passively follow your opponent.
Here is an example of a hand that I played the Main Event of the World Series of Poker this year and that illustrates this tactic. The blinds were 12,000 / 24.000 and 60.000 I put in the position of a button. Usually when you start focusing as 2 ½ big blinds, which is more on the button, you demonstrate a certain force. In this case, I had Q-J heart. The small blind after the big blind and went to bed.
The flop gives A-10-Rag; checke it, I relaunch of 65,000, it follows. The map of the turn gives a Queen - offering me the second pair of the table - and he still follows. This is the key moment of this hand and I decided to build 100,000. I have done to control the pot: I did not want to bet on 150.000 or 200.000 on the river, so I bet at this time hoping the jam on the river with most hands possible.
Let's say my opponent had A-3. Put my little turn on the idea that I had a strong hand and I wanted to get a "call" to him. There was no interest for him to rely on the river with an ace kicker and no, it would have been just happy to be offering a showdown at that time.
It is important to note the size of our stacks. I started the hand with about 600.000 tokens, whereas it was 1.5 million. 100.000 by betting on the turn, I have involved more than one third of my carpet, and could not try to bluff a revival because of my involvement in this hand. Furthermore, I suggested to him that I had really good hand. Had he relied more really, I would have been beaten for a modest sum.
My main goal on the turn was to reach the showdown to 100.000 in lieu of a larger amount. If I had to check the time, with about 280.000 in the pot, it could very well have had * Have baby, and my check would have indicated that I had no As. Then he had the opportunity to bet 150.000 - 200.000 on the river to get the most out of my hand. It would have sought an amount that I paid with a Queen or what looked like a bluff.
As if he had-baby and opted for a chip of 200.000 I 100.000 saved by relying on the turn.Bien course, it could thwart my plan by going all-in on river. Again, this is a situation where I tried to incorporate an image *, and I played really tight at that time - he was just as afraid of me than I of him.
And if I would beat with a Queen? Say that he had J-10 or K-10, he could be rewarded by following, and that is what I wanted - I needed 100,000 additional for my carpet. I was willing to take the risk of the river because it was only five or six outs *.
Against other players who are able to see the river and go to bed, I might have tried a different strategy, like playing songs carefully the turn while being ready to put on the river 175.000. But against him, I was almost sure he was going checker on the river unless it obtains the trips * or a fifth.
Finally, I never saw his hand. He check the river and I check behind. He was disgusted when I showed him the Queen, it was evident that he had a 10. But he could not have just one 10. With him, for having followed with 10 on the turn, he should have a card for the fifth spot - which could very well be J-10 or K-10. And that's exactly the hand against which I wanted to be on the turn.
This was really circumstantial, because it was based on the size of the carpet and image data, which factors are really important tournament live. Because of the size of my carpet, I played really tight and I could not allow gaps.
I have not had the opportunity to see many flops. I played against this opponent some time to develop this game, and I knew that this was the perfect location for that. I wanted to reach the showdown because I thought the Queen could be the best hand, but I did not want to pay 200.000 to find out. |
