stop n go?

[thrash1294]

Is this a correct explaination of a stop n go?

You have JJ and your opponent has AK.

Method #1: You're 1st to act after the blinds and raise it up. AK re-raises, you push all-in, AK calls.

The "Stop 'n' Go" Method: You're 1st to act after the blinds and raise it up. AK re-raises it, and you JUST CALL with the intention of pushing all-in instantly post flop.

And now for the reasoning...

Ok, so with method #1 (which I know a lot of people would go for) the positive side of the play is that you could win more from the hand as long as AK doesn't hit either of his cards. Against you is that fact that he has five cards to come and there's nothing you can do but sit, watch, and cross your fingers.

With the "Stop 'n' Go" what you're doing is taking advantage of the fact that (as we all sadly know) most of the time you don't connect with the flop. The good news is that you don't have to, because you're already holding JJ. By pushing all-in post flop, you're now forcing the AK player to have had to hit one of the three cards in the flop to continue, rather than guaranteeing him all five cards a la method #1. Ask most people how good they feel about AK with a full board still due to come... and then ask them how good they feel if they only had two cards to come.

When the flop arrives and doesn't contain his A or K, you push all-in and the blood drains from AK's face. You potentially aren't winning as many chips if you get AK to dump now, but you have an additional way to win besides praying the board is kind (i.e. your new-found fold equity).

If an ace or king do arrive on the flop, c'est la vie - curse the poker gods. The only difference is that with method #1 you would now be all-in anyway, helplessly watching these cards fall. In our second scenario, you now have the opportunity to get away with a chip and a chair...