Small Stakes No-Limit Hold’em

I'm not seeing the light here.  At the bottom of p102, the last paragraph, contrasting different lines (check behind, value bet) should you flop top vs middle pair, opens:  "If you instead had middle pair, you might bet the turn.  Since you have less pot equity relative to your opponents range, a turn checkraise doesn't bother you as much."

If anyone has read this section (Getting Value in Medium and Small Pots) and this paragraph made sense please share your insight.  I feel like I'm simply misreading it but it's driving my batty.  Why would getting checkraised with middle pair not bother me? 

Are the authors suggesting that I'm folding away less equity should I give it up?

BTW, this ebook goes very well with Time Out by The Dave Brubeck Quartet.

Post edited 11:37 am – June 20, 2009 by LowWaterMark

I go from almost a 2:1 favorite to a slight dog, or in other words, there's roughly a 20% equity differential between top and middle pair against a reasonable player.

Got it (I think).  If I muck middle pair to a turn checkraise it's better than being keel-hauled through the river with tens rather unlikely to be best and hopelessly unlikely to improve.  Hence, giving it up doesn't bother me as much as if it were kings.

Hmm, "58 Sessions" and "Crescent".  Nice.  If you like Tyner's piano on "Crescent", I hope to high heaven you have Bill Evans' "Sunday at The Village Vanguard" and if so, we truly must talk bassists because, well, because of Scott LaFaro.  Basically.

That's what they're saying, yes.  You have a pretty easy fold decision if you get check-raised on the turn when holding 2nd pair.  If you have the KJ however, the decision is not so easy, so it makes a lot of sense to avoid putting yourself in a position to face that tough decision.  Plus, you'll get potential value out of busted draws that bluff the river thinking the pot is winable because you checked back the turn… and value from worse made hands that will either make what they think is a value bet, or pay off much more lightly hoping to snap a bluff (it's hard to call the turn light hoping to snap a bluff with the threat of a big river bet looming, but once you show weakness on the turn, and they can call 1 more bet to close the action and look you up, you'll get those calls from all kinds of horrifically weak made hands.)

I'm curious why you'd rather pay $x on the turn rather than the river?  Do you just mean that you'd rather be bettinig $x than calling $x, and if you check behind on the turn IP villain may sense weakness and you may have to call $x on the river, so instead you keep the initiative, bet $x on the turn, and either get check/raised (easy fold), get villain to fold, or if villain calls he'll probably check to you again and you can check behind for a free showdown?

RML604 said:

I'm curious why you'd rather pay $x on the turn rather than the river?  Do you just mean that you'd rather be bettinig $x than calling $x, and if you check behind on the turn IP villain may sense weakness and you may have to call $x on the river, so instead you keep the initiative, bet $x on the turn, and either get check/raised (easy fold), get villain to fold, or if villain calls he'll probably check to you again and you can check behind for a free showdown?

yes. But obviously we need to look at it on a case by case basis…i.e. is villain aggressive with semi-bluffs? will an extra card hurt me a lot? is villain passive calling staiony? etc…