Originally posted by GingerKid
I feel like broken record saying this, but yeah, if we're not checking some decent hands we're going to be very exploitable and x/f way too much when we check a flop like this.
I am not against checking some hands. I just think that checking a hand that has a lot of value as this one, is waste of EV. OK, if it tough to say which line is max EV, if you think it is check, or both are very close, then fine, but I think that betting will almost always be max EV with a value hand.
I don't think I expressed myself well. I don't think it's close as part of a whole range. Because of how it effects hero's checking range. So when we have a mixed strategy the EV of checking or cbetting is equal (or else we wouldn't have a mixed strategy) but when we take it out of our checking range, and only have it in our cbet range, it will be -EV compared to the mixed strategy (or x only strategy).
I think that betting is max EV because the money goes on flop into pot 100% of time and villian will defend around 70-75% on such flop, so in average he will pay you 70-75% on flop. and when you check, villian will bet in average 40-50%. Same goes for cc turn and river. so thats why I think betting is not only higher but much higher EV than check. So imo, the check EV will be similar to bet EV, only if villian bets when we check similar frequency as he defends vs our bet (plus there is a very bad thing about villian getting freecards, showdown). so I think it is very unrealistic that check is higher EV, or even close to bet EV.
Apart from the accuracy of your assumptions on villains betting patterns, consider how cbetting is incentivizes villain to play against your checking range and how this results in the EV of all hands in your checking range. On top of that, if your checking range on the flop is constructed this way, it's likely your checking range on later streets is going to be similar. So putting more money into the flop only to x/f (which will be happening at grossly exploitable levels) later is not going to end well. The hand isn't over on the flop. No point putting more money in on the flop with the best hand when you still have to x/f it later on. Free cards aren't too much of a problem with the A:s
So I would check JJ as it blocks so many hands, and would also check AJ with spade, because it needs similar amount of protection as AA, and blocks JT, JJ so it will be better bluff catcher than AA, also it has much less value than AA. I assume average villian will bet most of KQ, AQ, AK, so no need to protect (similar as AA).
Also I think that to be unexploitable when checking having 100bb effective stack, there is even no need to protect range vs agressive opponent with TPTK+ hands, because we can defend with Tx, weak Jx hands, which can call down vs agro opponent. If we would be deep, and villian is making often overbets when we check, then it imo becomes max EV to check strong hands.
x/c down 3 streets (on what runouts?) capped at weak Jx hands against a good opponent is going to lead to some problems. Firstly you don't have that many of these hands, so you will still be x/f way too much. Also villain will be incentivized to tripple barrel very wide for value and can tripple barrel just about his entire range profitably, given that runouts are going to grossly cap (I'm assuming) your checking range on about 3/4 of runouts.
