Q: I watched this video by Daniel Negreanu explaining the pros of using the “Johnny Chan Play” as he calls it (https://www.youtube.com/
But I was wondering why not bet it out on the flop instead? Wouldn’t it achieve a similar result? Also, it can even be considered a blocking bet? I havent actually had any real-life cash poker games, mostly online so does this also make any difference?
A: It’s important to note that this is an old video (uploaded to YouTube in 2009, but perhaps created even earlier than that), and my guess is that this is not something Daniel Negreanu would publish today. I want to get that out front because, frankly, I don’t think what he’s saying makes any sense.
At the very least, it relies on some unfounded assumptions about how an opponent will play. The bottom line is that if your opponent wants to bet 6000 on the turn, you betting 3000 doesn’t stop him from doing that – he’s allowed to raise. So it doesn’t cause you to “take control of the hand” (a meaningless phrase, in my opinion), it merely helps your opponent correctly fold hands that are worse than yours.
Negreanu unintentionally explains why this isn’t a good play when he says that the bet will only be called by better hands. If you check and call a turn bet, you could be up against either a better hand or a bluff, and although the bluffs aren’t drawing dead against you, they are drawing pretty thin. Overall, calling a bet should be +EV for you (and if you think it isn’t, you can just fold). When you bet, though, you either take down a pot you were probably going to win anyway, if your opponent has nothing, or you put in 3000 drawing to two outs, which is much worse for you than putting in money against a range of better hands and bluffs. Basically, you want those bluffs in your opponents’ range if you’re going to put money in anyway.
Contrary to popular belief, there’s not often anything intrinsically desirable about being the aggressor (or “having the lead” or “initiative”) in no-limit hold ’em. There are certain types of hands that, when played aggressively, can outperform their equity. Extremely strong hands benefit from aggression because although their equity might be 100% of the pot, they can win even more than that if a bet is called. Extremely weak hands benefit because they have little equity but may win the entire pot if the opponent folds.
It does not follow from this that hands in the middle, hands which have good equity against a weak range but poor equity against a strong range, benefit from aggression, and I think that’s the misunderstanding we see here. Taking a marginal hand or bluff-catcher and turning it into a bluff does not cause that hand to outperform its equity. Often, it’s just the opposite.