Despite bad press in poker literature, I used to donk betting on the flop because I believe that preflop aggressor is expected to make continuation bet on the flop anyway so his continuation bet wouldn't give me much info and it would be more expensive to fight against him. Of course I use check/raise on the flop and check/call/bet on flop+turn but I feel that I need donk betting also to diversify little pit my lines postflop without position. I use 5% frequency for donk double barrelling (its usually not more than once during one session so I do not really care about exact ratio) and 33% frequency for value donk barrelling (when I get at least two pairs on the flop). What do you think? Why I shouldnt? How else could I blef my opponent postflop OOP than check/raise on flop or check/call/bet on flop+turn?
as long as your lines are balanced, you should be fine.
still using too many lines, gets you in trouble. you only have so many hits and distributing them between donk, XR and XC is often a big task.
I'm not really sure how big are our chances to flop something better than one pair... But I guess that 5% bluff donk two barrelling and 33% monster-value donk barrelling means unbalancing towards too much bluffing. Although my opponents will not see this because it takes a lot of time to make this move again with my settings 5% and 33%.
My main lines OOP are:
- check/raise for bluffing or for monster kind of value
- check/call on flop + bet on turn for bluffing or for monster kind of value
- passive check/call when board gives me only one pair, but it depends on exact situation how many barrels I would call with which kind of pair + sometimes one extra bet from my side if I have top pair (also depends on).
Monster kind of value = two pairs or better
To balance bluff:value here, I would need to play check/fold on flop too often and bluffing only as semi-bluff. That's why I bleff when randomizer displays right number + I have some equity (for example boards fits better to mine perceived range / I have two overcards / I have draw with some outs).
If I'm unlucky on flop and there is no moment for bleff from my side (so very common situation) I try to recognise whose range fits better for community cards. But I do not calculate during game anything, just try to guess whose potential range looks better.
In this situation I like to go against popular opinion about donk betting and just make it.
Playing one pair passively can be too easy for my opponents to read what I actually keep in my hand but... Let it be. At least pot is as small as possible and I do not get myself to difficult spot with one pair.
5% donk bluff two barrelling and 33% monster-value donk barrelling means unbalancing towards too much bluffing if we take into account only pot odds on the turn if villain decides to call and no implied odds. I hope to get implied odds once somebody called my two bets and had initiative preflop so this move is kinda balanced.
Originally posted by oblak90
5% donk two barrelling and 33% monster-value donk barrelling
so youre saying, that you want to donk 5% of your range?
and that part shall contain 33% value and 67% bluffs?
No, I meant 5% of flops where I didn't catch anything for bluff = around 3,33% cases when Im involved on the flop for bluff
33% flops where I catch at least two pairs = around 1.86% cases when Im involved on the flop for value
I use Excel spreadsheet during playing to follow my algorithms and plans. I constantly try to improve my strategy and final dream model would allow me to lose some small pots but subsequently to win majority of bigger pots. This is the reason why I'm looking for lines with high implied odds and want to balance everything not in ratio bluff: value but in ratio bluff: monster value. There are enough fishes on NL100 ready to give me all of their money with pure air just because they think that I slowplay pairs and bet only for bluff.
EV is not only a product of probability and odds.
EV is also a function of level of pot.