![]() Why would one like to lead vs a stronger range? Also, by betting on the flop, one needs to consider what happens with his checking range. you 3bet preflop the strong part of the deck, and therefore usually you are weaker on the flop. One of the main reasons that usually you shouldn’t have a leading range is that this range commonly is capped, i.e. Let’s see lastly one kind of good argument for the non-goodness of donk betting. Of course, when you donk bet you can’t check-call or check-raise same time (this is not quantum mechanics), but this doesn’t mean that this action has necessarily less EV. And even if would bet with 100% frequency, this doesn’t mean that a donk bet is necessarily out of the picture of valid strategies. We are not in 2005 where cbet at a high frequency, i.e from the BTN, is enough to crush high stakes. Therefore, why not let him bluff? Again, this argument is kind of vague. This, because the preflop aggressor is supposed to be cbetting with a high frequency. Old-modern school poker also suggests that you have no reason to donk bet since you miss the opportunity to check-call or check-raise. But even if this is the case, what one would do with this information? If Villain has a balanced checking flop range, by checking back a part of his range doesn’t lose anything. if you would have checked and Villain would have checked back, he usually has a hand of medium strength. Therefore, by donk betting, you miss some information? i.e. One, of course, can assume that this is the case. betting his strong hands for value, checking the medium strength and betting the very next part of his range, he doesn’t have to!! Although Villain is supposed to be betting polarized as the preflop aggressor, i.e. Secondly, regarding the information we lose, still, the arguments are not clear. Assuming that a strategy with donk betting is of higher EV than one without– and in some scenarios it can be, as we will discuss later in this article– then it is clear that one should have a leading range in his repertoire. ![]() ![]() He can only make assumptions based on population reads – mostly based on reads linked with the fish and their tendencies (which is way far from what you are doing – hopefully ☺ ).īut even if he was aware exactly of your donking game plan this doesn’t make necessarily the play bad. And if he needs to gather 100K hands before he actually knows, then practically he doesn’t have a clue about what you are doing. I have read this written more or less like this even from well-known players here and there.įirst of all, Villain is unlikely to know what your betting/donk betting strategy is. When you bet you are supposed to give information about your range and you don’t take information about Villain’s range. One of the reasoning behind the badness of donk betting is related to an outdated concept, which regards gaining and/or giving away information. In the most optimistic criticisms, one is a bad player and doesn’t understand what poker is if he donk bets! Why you donk bet? Are you a fish? Well, according to some old school/old modern perception of the game – which by the way one can mostly meet even today-, there are many disadvantages leading the flop as the preflop defender and this is a play which should be strongly avoided. Ok, let’s examine the origins of this bad fame for the poor donk bet. In poker terminology “donk” is a bad player (*although donkeys are considered quite intelligent beasts, a little stubborn, however). Means fool in Australian slang but most likely it borrowed its name from the known animal (donkey), member of the horse family. ![]() I am not sure where the old donk betting bet took its name from.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |