Help Explain/Refute Excerpt from Book

[SubT33]

The author is explaining how you should adjust your play according to your reads of what type of player your opponent is. As an example in Hold em suppose it is checked to you on the river

you hold:AK

the board:T-4-2-7-7

The author then goes on to say that if you think your opp. will fold to a bet you should check and that "If the player will not call without a pair, then you cannot gain any value by betting." Don't you gain value if they don't call? Or is the author saying that this is no different than checking because you are going to win anyway if neither of you paired? What if you check and they put the pressure on you and bet?

This was confusing to me when I read it.

 

[Bentheman87]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like he's saying if your opponent is tight you should check, because he will only call if he has you beat, so you won't gain any value from betting. But a loose opponent may call with KQ, KJ, or AJ, he may call your bet with something that you have beat, but a tight opponent will fold those same hands that the loose opponent will call with.

 

[zachvac]

The author is explaining how you should adjust your play according to your reads of what type of player your opponent is. As an example in Hold em suppose it is checked to you on the river

you hold:AK

the board:T-4-2-7-7

The author then goes on to say that if you think your opp. will fold to a bet you should check and that "If the player will not call without a pair, then you cannot gain any value by betting." Don't you gain value if they don't call? Or is the author saying that this is no different than checking because you are going to win anyway if neither of you paired? What if you check and they put the pressure on you and bet?

This was confusing to me when I read it.

For example say if your opponent has a 2 he'll call, but K high he folds. He literally folds everything you have beat and calls everything that beats you. The point isn't the value you don't get when he's worse, but the money you lose when he calls with the better hand. Alternatively, you should be more inclined to bet with 35 in this spot than with AK, because with 35 you are almost certain not to win if you check, but if you bet will fold out several other hands that have you beat.

 

[pantin007]

- EV in long run
very well put tho zack
u always have the right answer

 

[SubT33]

For example say if your opponent has a 2 he'll call, but K high he folds. He literally folds everything you have beat and calls everything that beats you. The point isn't the value you don't get when he's worse, but the money you lose when he calls with the better hand. Alternatively, you should be more inclined to bet with 35 in this spot than with AK, because with 35 you are almost certain not to win if you check, but if you bet will fold out several other hands that have you beat.

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[theWizard-50]

Simplified: Only a better hand than yours will call your bet.