Reasonable spot to bluff?

[JTG51]

.50/1 PLO. To start the hand, I have $200+ and my opponent has about $100. I don't know much about him.

EP, MP, and LP limp. I limp on the button with A /images/graemlins/club.gifK /images/graemlins/heart.gifJ /images/graemlins/diamond.gif8 /images/graemlins/club.gif. SB folds and the BB calls. Six to the flop.

Flop: Q /images/graemlins/club.gif9 /images/graemlins/club.gif3 /images/graemlins/heart.gif

Everyone checks to me and I bet the pot, about $6. All fold to MP who calls.

Turn: Q /images/graemlins/club.gif9 /images/graemlins/club.gif3 /images/graemlins/heart.gif6 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

Checked to me, I check.

River: Q /images/graemlins/club.gif9 /images/graemlins/club.gif3 /images/graemlins/heart.gif6 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif9 /images/graemlins/spade.gif

Checked to me, I bet the pot.

What do you think of my play on each street? Is this a raise preflop? Good spot to bluff on the river?

[greywolf]

when you checked the turn on a very dangerous board i think you should give up any thoughts on representing a boat on the river it doesnt make sense, of course maybe youre opponent were on some sort of draw himself and is to dumb to realize that you are likely bluffing then go ahead and make a bet, i would consider making a slighly underbet( 4/5 of the pot) as i often do to give myself better odds. If you often play the same opponents , remember to do this sometimes when you arent bluffing so you dont become to easy to read.

[nicky g]

If he's a thinking player, he may well put you on a busted draw bluff - after all, why do you check the turn when an effective blank comes if you have a made hand? On the other hand, there's a pretty good chance he was on a draw too and has very little to call you, with especially as he's not only checked three times but also when you've shown serious weakness on the turn, so it's worth giving it a go; perhaps not a full pot be though. I might bet the turn here. A good player may well call/raise you here with not very much.

[sahaguje]

Hi,

Some thoughts about your play :

Preflop : raise. You have the best position, a pretty good hand, and you have to vary you raises preflop. Unless you have a tell someone will limp reraise (but I guess it is an online hand), raise. You have a big stack compared to your opponents, you have to use it.

Flop : OK.

Turn : I disagree with your play. You should bet, at least 50% of the pot. You are basically telling your opponent : I am on a draw. He is weak : he check called on the flop, and checked on fourth street. Play your opponent, not your cards : bet.

River : I dont like your play here neither. On the turn, you said, "i Am on a draw". Unless the other player is very bad, he will bet with any busted draw on the river. If he checks, there is a good chance he has not much, but want to induce a bluff from you. Check and muck, unless you have a read your opponent is a relly deep weak-tight idiot.

Very intersting hand, though. Dont forget to play your opponent, and dont forget he also sometimes thinks about what you have. Here on the river he basically knows what you are doing ; he knows you are on a draw, and missed. If he did not bet, there is a reason. He wants you to bluff.

See you

sahaguje

[pete fabrizio]

This 9 on the river just makes it more obvious why you should have bet the turn -- you gave up your representing privileges. He would have had trouble calling you with any kind of "made" hand like 2 pair -- and if he called with a draw, he was drawing pretty thin, since a lot of his "outs" give you a nut hand, he had no implied odds, and any blank (particularly one that paired the board), and you easily steal the pot.

If he is a good player, the only hands he will fold on the river here are hands that are probably behind anyway (and maybe a 3, 6, or the like -- though I've seen calls with less).

[Zag]

I want to disagree with some of the others. I think this is a reasonable play on one condition: if this is the same betting pattern that you would have used with K/images/graemlins/club.gif Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif j/images/graemlins/club.gif 9/images/graemlins/diamond.gif or Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif j/images/graemlins/club.gif T/images/graemlins/spade.gif 9/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

Both of these hands would have flopped top two pair and a decent draw, but not a great one. I know that, given position and these hands, I would exactly have bet the flop but checked behind on the turn.

With top two, I want to get to a cheap showdown, if I can, and perhaps induce a bluff on the river. On the turn, especially, I don't want to get blown out by a big check-raise, because I do have outs even if I am behind, but I don't have enough to call a raise.

I guess I am puzzled that you all feel no one would put you on a hand like this. I would expect all the two-pair hands against you to assume that I have at least a 9, and to fold to the river bet.

On the other hand, I don't disagree too strongly with a turn bet, here, either. But the problem is that, if you are called, you really don't want to fire another barrel on the end when you miss. After all, there really aren't that many reasonable draws that would be calling you, because you hold the best draw. Therefore, calls on the flop AND the turn would mean a made hand of some sort, and you might just be blasting off extra chips on the river. But if he WAS calling with some sort of a draw, you definitely want to bet, since you lose to any stray kicker hitting a pair.

Bottom line: I like the way you played it. You still will get called by anyone with a 9, probably, but someone with just a Q or a 6 will fold.

[pete fabrizio]

I say bet both of those hands on the turn as well.

[sherbert]

OK, here's my 2p's worth. Sahaguje recommends raising before the flop. I think you can wait for a better hand - a big pair or better connected cards would do.

But: if you had raised preflop, then I think the semi-bluff bet on the flop becomes far better. As it is, this is Party; in an unraised pot, you will almost certainly get callers, and then where are you? There are six players (!) to the flop. For your bet to be worthwhile, there must be a percentage of time when ALL the players fold. That will happen, heh, less than 1% I'd guess on Party.

You will get one or more callers, and also face the prospect of a CR.

A second nut flush with an extra three outs from your gutshot (and 3 Kings if a caller has just TP no kicker) may not offer much value here.

Why not take the free card. If it's checked on the turn, you still don't have the value to bet.

Having reached the river with just the one caller, sometimes I might bet if I had strong enough a read on the player. You can represent the nine I think, as it would be "natural" to other players for your to bet second pair on the flop. But more often I'd wimp out.

Bottom 2 or middle pair are just the hands that Party players will call you down with. They will (nearly) always put you on a button bluff when you bet the flop and will call you in an instant on the river with next to nothing - but that next to nothing beats yours.

I think Pete was right, in that checking the turn meant you gave up representing rights. So betting the river now becomes more suspicious. Of course, you might get a player with TP to fold.

Overall, I think there are better situations to bluff. Think about blockers for example.

JMO.

Cheers.

[sherbert]

Hi Zag,

If you have top two, you cannot afford to let another player off on the turn by checking it - especially if you have a draw to go with it, no matter how weak.

You are giving up way too much and also have no way of knowing what to do on the river if the OP now springs a potsized bet at you - especially if it is an innocuous looking card.

Betting is compulsory with the hand you describe. There's almost no two ways about it.

JMO

Cheers,

Sherbert.

[JTG51]

Maybe I should have mentioned that this hand wasn't on Party, it was on Stars. The players in that game are typically fairly tight and very straight forward. When they check, they have nothing. That may have made a difference in some of the responses.

Flop: When everyone checks, I think there's actually a pretty good chance I'll win the pot with a bet in this game. LP's check call looked to me like a draw or a really weak hand like just a Q that he's taking one card off with.

Turn: I think I agree with those of you that said I should bet. I was going to, but I didn't want to get called again by a draw then have to decide if I should fire another barrel at the river to make a hand like JT88 fold. That's probably a poor reason, but that's what I was thinking.

River: I think many of you are giving him way too much credit. The average player in this game won't even notice that my bet looks suspicious, nevermind try to do anything about it. I'll occasionally get called by just a Q, but I don't think he's ever going to check raise bluff me.

Anyway, I bet and he folded, so we'll never know what he had.

I'm going to keep posting these hands. I've learned a ton from the last two or three hands that I've posted here. Thanks.

[3rdEye]

Yeah, I'd put him on a draw. Of course, in PLO, top two pair with a straight flush draw on board on the flop is basically a draw, and he might be playing scared.

[Zag]

The specific situation under discussion is if you have one opponent on whom you have position. You have flopped top two and a weak draw (such as a non-nut flush or an 8-out straight). You have bet the flop and been called, and then the turn was a blank and the opponent checks to you.

[ QUOTE ]
If you have top two, you cannot afford to let another player off on the turn by checking it ... Betting is compulsory with the hand you describe. There's almost no two ways about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I continue to hold to my opinion, that checking behind is the better play. I am very willing to be convinced otherwise, but here is my reasoning.

If you bet, what worse hands are there that will call? 2 pair worse than top two will probably fold. The lame overpair hands that at least one poster here loves to play will certainly fold (unless he makes the check-raise bluff). So the bottom line is that there are no made hands that you beat which will call, only the drawing hands.

Risk of checking:
1. Drawing hands will not pay to draw at you. Ameliorating factor: With some of those draws, you'll be chopping anyway. For other draws, you hold some of their outs, so they are less likely to hit than would be the case if you didn't have your weak draw.
2. Weak drawing hands and worse made hands (bottom 2 pair, for instance) that would fold now get a chance for a miracle card. (However, see point 6, below.)

Pros of checking:
1. Weaker made hands may overrate your weakness and bet at you on the river.
2. Pot stays much smaller when you are beaten, because you have avoided the check-raise. Note that checking the turn and calling a pot-sized bet on the river costs you exactly the same as if you had bet the turn and folded to the check-raise, and you get to see the showdown.
3. If you are the one drawing, you get to do it for free.
4. Because you showed weakness on the turn, opponent will be unlikely to check, planning to check-raise on the river. Therefore, if a card comes which looks like one that finishes a draw (even if it is not yours) and the opponent checks to you, you can pretty safely bet out and will probably bluff off someone with a set.
5. You can't be bluffed off of a winning hand.
6. Weaker made hands (bottom 2 or top and bottom) and even a stronger hand -- bottom set -- might hit the miracle card that gives them a smaller full house than yours. Now you get their whole stack.

Pros of betting:
1. If opponent is drawing, he now pays to do so. Therefore, you win more money when opponent is drawing and doesn't hit.
2. If opponent has a worse made hand or a bad draw, he will fold and doesn't get the opportunity to pick up the miracle card.

Risk of betting:
1. There are plenty of made hands which are much better than yours, and these will all check-raise you. Your weak draw won't give you odds to call, so you have to lay it down.
2. You are at risk of a check-raise bluff or semi-bluff.

These all add up, to me, that you should check behind on the turn. Agree or disagree?

[Zag]

Since this was a digression from the original note, I am going to repost this as a new thread.

[sahaguje]

Hi,

Zag, when you add pros and cons, you should also consider the weigh of each point. When and opponent checks and calls on the flop and checks on the turn when the board is filled with draws, but no possible big hand yet, like the one on this hand ( Qc 9c 3 6 ), you can be pretty sure he is on a draw, or has a very weak made hand+draw. There is just no way he has a set, unless he is a very very bad player, or really has a monster (QQTcJc). So if you check behind with top 2 pair, the truth is you give him infinite odds to his draw. You should absolutely never do that, unless you just want to give up that hand for some reason. I really think this is basic PLO theory.
This being said, the other problem in your post is that among the 6 points in favor of checking, I think at least 5 are wrong... I wont discuss each of them (no time, sorry), but IMHO you really should rethink the way you play PLO, because giving free cards with top 2 pair when it was checked-called on flop and it is checked again to you on the turn is a very costing mistake. Sorry if my tone is a little hard, but really, it is bad poker, I think. Read or reread Ciaffone's and Reuben's various texts about PLO, or at least crockpot's page if you have not done so. If you want, I will comment each point you made later, maybe tomorrow, if nobody does it.

See you

sahaguje

[sherbert]

[ QUOTE ]
You said: “The specific situation under discussion is if you have one opponent on whom you have position. You have flopped top two and a weak draw (such as a non-nut flush or an 8-out straight). You have bet the flop and been called, and then the turn was a blank and the opponent checks to you.”

I said: “If you have top two, you cannot afford to let another player off on the turn by checking it ... Betting is compulsory with the hand you describe. There's almost no two ways about it.”

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct.

[ QUOTE ]
I continue to hold to my opinion, that checking behind is the better play. I am very willing to be convinced otherwise, but here is my reasoning. If you bet, what worse hands are there that will call? 2 pair worse than top two will probably fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not always, but getting a reasonable figure here would be difficult. Even so, this is one reason why you must bet. You want more chips out of them when you are ahead AND you want to charge them for chasing their miracle FH outs.

“The lame overpair hands that at least one poster here loves to play will certainly fold (unless he makes the check-raise bluff). So the bottom line is that there are no made hands that you beat which will call, only the drawing hands.”

You've said it yourself. For that very reason that you must bet here to prevent over pairs, or indeed any pair hitting their 2-outer and often forcing you to pay them off.

"Risk of checking: Drawing hands will not pay to draw at you. Ameliorating factor: With some of those draws, you'll be chopping anyway. For other draws, you hold some of their outs, so they are less likely to hit than would be the case if you didn't have your weak draw."

Correct - and all the more reason to bet. You have to charge the draws a price, but especially so when you have some of their outs. You are skewing the odds vastly in your favour. If you don’t bet, you are giving them a free card – the worst crime in the book.

Suppose you knew their hand – board J, T, 3, two clubs. You have the JT; they have: 7 and 8 of clubs. They are drawing to a (poor) gutshot and a poor flush. You MUST bet here.

"2. Weak drawing hands and worse made hands (bottom 2 pair, for instance) that would fold now get a chance for a miracle card. (However, see point 6, below.)”

No miracle cards in the example I gave above – the usual combo of nine flush cards and three outs for a gutshot – a typical Omaha drawing hand; and one that any half decent player would ditch on the flop. But if the OP has called with this lousy holding, then you have no choice but to charge him again on the turn.

And these will constitute the majority of the hands in question; not the amazing twentycard wrap, but just weak, crappy hands. You have to kill them off.

"Pros of checking:
1. Weaker made hands may overrate your weakness and bet at you on the river."

True – but you will end up paying off a lot here. Because you will have no idea why they are springing to life. If a scare card comes - the third flush card, etc, you will nearly always either be folding or paying them off. It's even worse when an innocuous card - say an 8 on a board of K,Q,2,4,8 arrives. But your opponent with J,T,88 has now just demolished your top two. If you had bet on the turn, he would either have folded , or B, and this is most important, checked his good thing to you on the river, because he couldn't be sure, following your bet on the turn who held the better hand - trip Kings or Queens in this instance.

In other words, betting the turn gives you the free showdown on the river you so desire – more often than not.

"2. Pot stays much smaller when you are beaten, because you have avoided the check-raise."

If you are C Raised on the turn with top two in PLO you are almost certainly up against a monster and you almost certainly have to fold, unless you have an unbelievably accurate read on your opponent. (Sometimes this is possible, but even so you would like more than 2-pair to call.) And further, how often does this happen? Very rarely. Finally, what is wrong with having a big pot when you have the best hand?

"Note that checking the turn and calling a pot-sized bet on the river costs you exactly the same as if you had bet the turn and folded to the check-raise, and you get to see the showdown."
As I said, you are rarely check raised on the turn. I can remember it happening once to me in the last year, in live play. It’s only happened a few times online. Online, I’ve folded. No big deal. Being caught up calling top two pair against a potentially much much better hand is a very different scenario from being checked to on the turn.

“3. If you are the one drawing, you get to do it for free.”

You mean, if your opponent has trips, or rarely, where you share top two, and he has better accompanying overcards?

I agree, but any good player is going to bet his trips here to prevent you drawing out on him – if he has top set. Very often, you will find that bottom set or even middle set, if the players are weak tight, will check call. Here you have two things going for you: if they don’t CR you – you will probably lose. But guess what? Your top two now becomes a real money spinner against any bottom or middle set, as they both think they have the nuts, often times, when the board pairs your top or second pair.

They will bet into you, you can raise and when you are very lucky, one of them will occasionally reraise all-in.

Secondly, by betting into them, you still get a FREE RIVER – the objective which you so desired. If the OP now bets into you and you call with TT, well, you’ve been outplayed. Again, no big deal. But this is the critical part – if you want a free showdown, better to bet the turn.

The above is excluding those hands where you have a weak accompanying draw. Where you have a (weak) accompanying draw, I still argue it is best to bet. Board: K,Q, 7, turn a blank, you have K,Q, J, 9, you become even more willing to bet here. You may well have a couple of the outs the OP wants. That improves your hand substantially.

Secondly, while the gutshot may seem good, a T on the river can give the OP a better hand. To prevent that happening, you must once again bet the turn. The same principle applies when you have a weak flush draw to go with your top two. Bet the turn.

“4. Because you showed weakness on the turn, opponent will be unlikely to check, planning to check-raise on the river.”

Hmmm…this sounds very hypothetical. Any examples you might have in mind? I’m not entirely sure what the point is. I can see he won’t want to check with the aim of CR. But this doesn’t happen all that often in any case, does it? Only a very small minority of good players are capable of bluff check raising the river – although when you have checked the turn is as good a time to do it as any.

“Therefore, if a card comes which looks like one that finishes a draw (even if it is not yours) and the opponent checks to you, you can pretty safely bet out and will probably bluff off someone with a set.”
That’s a nice play. I don’t think you gain as much in this instance as you do by betting the turn however, to charge any sort of drawing hand a price to draw out on you.

“5. You can't be bluffed off of a winning hand.”

Not sure what you mean here. If the board comes runner runner eight say, and the OP now launches a pot sized bet, are you calling him down with top two? Even if it’s winning?

"6. Weaker made hands (bottom 2 or top and bottom) and even a stronger hand -- bottom set -- might hit the miracle card that gives them a smaller full house than yours. Now you get their whole stack." As discussed.

I fear that while well argued, checking the turn in the scenario envisaged is nothing other than weak tight, especially so against one player. You likely have the best hand, and with that, you should bet.

Pros of betting and cons of betting:
…. Agree or disagree?

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree /images/graemlins/smile.gif