Mid/High Stakes Limit Hold'em Poker Forums

So, to be clear, the game is $5/10 6max. I'm BB, and opponent is BT with a range at 45% or so. Let's assume opponent is at least a decent thinking player who will notice anything super-obvious and adjust.

The board is dry. A83r or K72r etc. etc. According to my math, I can often c/r ATC profitably here...at least til I get caught doing something too shady.

So the question: With immediate fold equity this high, would I ever actually want to check-call? It seems to me on this board, I'd want to simply c/r every hand worth check-calling (i.e. c/r = more profitable) plus a bunch of air (but not ATC.)

I'm not sure constantly check raising hands that only get action from better hands and fold out only worse hands is a good habit.

I'm not sure constantly check raising hands that only get action from better hands and fold out only worse hands is a good habit.

If I told you on a board your opponent opened 100% of the time but only called a c/r on the flop with top set, you'd c/r 100% of the time, right? And you'd do this happily even though you'd only be called when you were behind.

I'd rather slowplay a big chunk of my value hands in that situation, assuming he has more realistic game plan on the big streets.

If I told you on a board your opponent opened 100% of the time but only called a c/r on the flop with top set, you'd c/r 100% of the time, right? And you'd do this happily even though you'd only be called when you were behind.

You definitely shouldn't check/raise middle set in this scenario. (Would it be for value? a bluff?)

You definitely shouldn't check/raise middle set in this scenario. (Would it be for value? a bluff?)

Exactly, if my opponent is so exploitable then I will exploit him by bluffing a lot but playing my marginal value hands differently.

C/r'ing all hands may be profitable, but it's more profitable to check/call with some hands.

If I told you on a board your opponent opened 100% of the time but only called a c/r on the flop with top set, you'd c/r 100% of the time, right? And you'd do this happily even though you'd only be called when you were behind.

Pot size correlation, then information hiding. In that order.

Pot size correlation, then information hiding. In that order.

I honestly have no clue what that means in this context.

I'll try to translate...pot size correlation is the idea that you take a line which makes the pot size "correct" for the type of hand you either have, or are drawing at. For example second pair never wants to play a big pot, but a flush draw is somewhat happy to, since if you hit the hand, it can stand action.

Information hiding is somewhat the same as saying "balance" - to not make your actions transparent, to protect your ranges, etc.

Nope, still don't get the relevance. If we have TP+ against this villain we want to play a big pot (assuming he plays somewhat more standard on later streets), but never by raising the flop, as that only generates a big pot when we're crushed.

If villain is totally oblivious to our range and is folding to our raise 99.5% of the time, I have absolutely nothing to hide or balance (GTO-wise), it's all about exploitation.

This discussion would make a lot more sense if villain had a realistic strategy.

This discussion would make a lot more sense if villain had a realistic strategy.

Or if Villain was realistic himself. No one is completely oblivious. The only thing I was trying to say in my post is that OP seemed to be playing all his hands the same for the purpose of info-hiding. I may have misunderstood the point of the post, but it's mostly because in practice I'm against exploiting 100 percent maximally.

Ok thanks, got it. I guess I got confused because of the part you quoted. Or then I still am