The Stop 'N Go Paradox
Posted by AF3
Posted by
AF3
posted in
Mid Stakes
The Stop 'N Go Paradox
River--2 Value: 1 Bluff
Turn: 1 Value: 1 Bluff
Flop: 1 Value: 2 Bluff
Because this is the case, it seems that if we are in position and we bet the flop and our opponent calls the flop and then bets out of position on the turn, we are forced to call with a small amount of bluffs. If this is the case, then why don't we ever see the stop 'n go in practice? Is it because if the person betting the turn out of position is capped then we would just take the bluffs we had to continue with and raise them to balance our raises with nut hands?
This seems reasonable, but it also seems like if our range is capped then we'll have to face big bets anyways. I'm just a little confused as to why you NEVER see this play. The answer has to be more than some vague "well in real poker, equities are dynamic you see..." since this should apply symetrically to both players.
Loading 7 Comments...
It's rare but it still occurs. I think it occurs at a low frequency because the main thing that OOP leading OTT accomplishes is folding out air. That isn't necessarily higher EV for the OOP player then checking, allowing the IP player to bet and get x/raised off the air component of their range or bluff OTR, again allowing the opportunity for OOP to bluff-catch or x/raise bluff.
I didn't see mention of the stack sizes so there's not enough detail to answer, however sufficient conditions for that line would require IP raising 100% of nut hands dominating other options including calling and allowing OOP to play an additional street with a capped range.
I think it's unlikely that raising OTT is better then calling when OOP has a capped range, when there is a street left to play. I think raising OTT allows OOP to make many straight forward folds, eliminating the potential for OOP making an additional bet OTR with air that would likely have folded to a raise OTT .
Why can't IP use a mixed strategy with nut hands when calling OTT?
Thanks for explaining, that makes a lot of sense.
The way i'm reading it, it sounds like you're saying "a capped range as OOP sucks either way, so why not lead turn and get called by some bluffs." heres the reasons i can think of
-you're facing a wider range of bluffs if you x/c vs a polarized range
-even if IP never responds by raising turn, your equity from his floated turn bluffs isn't realizable .. b/c he never has to felt these hands otr vs a lead, and if you check he'll always unload them into a polarized betting range
-IP can raise at a high fqcy and make you regret leading (you lose the effective pot instantly with the majority of ur value hands when he raises a balanced range).
standard ~toy game application would be , "why shouldnt BB lead into UTG on 222 flop"
more abstract application could be, " why shouldn't CO c-bet into button with TT on Q98hh?
IP will just raise us and we lose a lot more than if we had checked
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJf6riBT8h0
Does this play make any sense?
Be the first to add a comment