Criticism of flop (not) betting [semi-rant]

insafehands

I usually keep quite a low profile on boards, but this is an issue that has constantly baffled me.

When posting hands, you'll usually find either "leading the flop is bad/stupid/idiotic or not leading the flop is bad/stupid/idiotic". The reasoning behind doing so seems to change from hand-to-hand is dependent more on the results than poker theory.

Don't ask me to quote certain to posts, as frankly, I couldn't be arsed. Now this is just opinion, it could be the case that I'm looking at it the wrong way, so I'm posting to see what people think.

The position on betting/not betting the flop seems to vary quite wildly between post-to-post and in some cases seems to me like that person saying it is just getting a dig in. It's become quite in vogue in recent months, but I haven't seen anyone offer any solid theory behind doing so and offering that reason constantly.

I guess this post is also a criticism of people who post replies with sh1t like "fold the flop", "fold", "call", "easy decision" etc, without giving any thinking behind it. All of us, well most of us, want a pretty high content forum where people can learn more effectively, yet some of the proponents of such a forum can also be seen posting the above crap.

Anyway, whatever....

ish.

Ace2007

Every hand is different, Every flop is different, Every ones play is Different, If ur sitting with 9 lose players u will play alot differently than if ur playing with 9 of the tightest players on the plant(cardsharke,phantom_lord, etc )

fuzzbox

Yo, mr. low profile. You have as much responsibility to post clever, thought-provoking and insightful analysis to hand histories as anybody else. If you dont like what is being said, then please join in the discussion and add your two cents.

phantom_lord

pokerplaya had a rant about this before, usually when people give a one line answer to a hand it's because should be obvious why that's the best line, or it's been explained before, like in this hand, it's been explained loads of times while donking is bad, or raising with aqd is bad, and no one can be bothered to do it everytime a hand like it is posted.

plus theres: http://blog.flopturnriver.com/post/IowaSkinsFan/1047/Why-some-players-get-good-and-some-dont

Mr.Plough

its situation dependant.

pf action?
are you just cbetting?
overpair to the board?
high pocket pair with one over card on flop?
did you hit with ak/aq/aj type hands?
do you have a nut fd or some other drawing hand?
do you have a set?

there are so many different situations, some of which are better to bet the flop than others.

whether to cbet depends on flop texture, no. of opponents, type of opponents, your position etc.

i bet the flop with most overpairs depending on pf action. eg if i raise with jj and get 3bet by and unknown, i may check the flop. if ive aa, get 3bet, 4bet him, he calls and the board comes kqx i'll check for obvious reasons

when youve a pair such as kk/qq and an ace comes on the board il check and let him bluff with weaker hands. betting the flop there is bad you'll have already heard alot as he'll fold what you beat yada yada.


blah i could go on but you know this already

Ste05

fuzzbox wrote:

Yo, mr. low profile. You have as much responsibility to post clever, thought-provoking and insightful analysis to hand histories as anybody else. If you dont like what is being said, then please join in the discussion and add your two cents.

.

This goes for everyone, if you don't know why something is an easy call or why a donk bet is terrible, ask or join in the discussion and someone might be willing to explain why, this forum isn't so that lurkers can get the most out of reading, it's so the contributors get the best out of it.

So everyone reading or having the same issues, come out of the shadows and get involved. Some posters have explained certain things so many times that they just can't be bothered any more, unless they're in a particularly good mood or something. Certainly that's the case with myself anyway.

cardshark202

insafehands wrote:

Don't ask me to quote certain to posts, as frankly, I couldn't be arsed.

ok

5starpool

A lot of the time when people post these opinions it is for specific reasons such as:

OP said he bet because he was sure he was ahead and hoped worse hands that were not draws would fold.
OP said he checked in case someone was on a draw and didn't want them to call a bet they shouldn't on a draw.
OP said he checked because he though somone might have a very unlikely holding.
OP said he bet to "see where he is". This is the most common one of all.

In a lot of cases the hands that are criticised are not playing them in an optimum way. A lot of hands might seem similiar at first glance and people who don't think them through properly can't see why there may be different responses to hands that seem similiar, but are in fact quite different due to several reasons such as previous action, players involved etc. There are loads of tricky hands in this game of poker, but there are also hands that are very transparent if you are paying attention at the time or all info is provided by the poster.

Hectorjelly

Its just a question of time, people dont have time to make long detailed posts (especially as a lot of the time it will be redundant, ie everyone has heard it all before) . If you dont understand something someone says, just ask.

ArmaniJeanss

insafehands wrote:

I guess this post is also a criticism of people who post replies with sh1t like "fold the flop", "fold", "call", "easy decision" etc, without giving any thinking behind it. All of us, well most of us, want a pretty high content forum where people can learn more effectively, yet some of the proponents of such a forum can also be seen posting the above crap.

I think a lot of it is related to the stakes involved.

If someone posts a micro-stakes hand and says they are a beginner, then generally people will give a more detailed answer, some theory, some encouragement etc.

If however someone posts a hand from say .50/$1 upwards, then I think its usually assumed that they don't need 'molly coddling' or too detailed an answer as by playing at these levels they are de facto claiming to know the basics of the game.

cooker3

ArmaniJeanss wrote:

I think a lot of it is related to the stakes involved.

If someone posts a micro-stakes hand and says they are a beginner, then generally people will give a more detailed answer, some theory, some encouragement etc.

If however someone posts a hand from say .50/$1 upwards, then I think its usually assumed that they don't need 'molly coddling' or too detailed an answer as by playing at these levels they are de facto claiming to know the basics of the game.

Yeah I'd agree, you find usually if a 25/50nl hand is posted that all the regulars at that level who for the most part don't post as much reply to them as it's a hand at their level.
While say if Fuzzbox as an example posts a 200/400 nl hand then the best contributors will post to it as it will be (usually) a higher content thread. This means 25/50nl don't take part as much

I think it's a confidence thing for a lot of posters, n00bs or micro stakers tend to come on saying first hand don't be hard on me or when giving advice don't come accross as confident or certain in their advice, if your not confident in your advice then nobody else will be.

I think it's just a matter of posting more which will make you better, make you more confident and get people used to you which is all important to making a good contribution to the forum.

Hmmmn, I am not sure any of the above actually is relevant to op but meh my general take on the poker forum if nothing else.

RoundTower

RoundTower

valor

good post dave