Turn 3-bet/fold

5 handed 5/10 now.


2 limp to me on the button and I raise with AQo.


Both blinds call and everyone sees the flop for 2 bets each.


The flop is 892 with 2 clubs. My ace is of clubs.


Everyone checks to me and I decided to bet. I often check here behind with this many opponents, but in this case I bet because there could be a small chance that my hand was best and I might buy a free card on the turn (depending how many opponents would fold to my bet).


Everyone called.


The turn is an offsuit Q.


Again everyone checks to me, and I bet. Now the SB check-raises and everyone folds to me.


I didnt know much about this opponent. He just came to the table.


Now I decided to 3-bet. If he put a move on me with a flushdraw I would charge him max as well if he has a weaker Q. I thought if he capped then I could fold. I would then say he has most likely JT, or at least a better hand (dont you think?).


He capped, and I folded.


Comments?


Regards

He didn't play this very well IMO, but it sounds like you did.


soda

I'd much rather call the checkraise and call 1 bet on the river and have a chance to win the pot. 3-bettting with top pair/top kicker on the turn after getting checkraised is simply overplaying your hand.

I agree with Dynasty.

First, I don't understand why you call it overplaying. 3-Betting and folding to a cap costs the same as calling down.


The advantages of calling down:

-You get a garanteed showdown

-You might have a redraw which gets there on the river


The advantages of 3-betting:

-You punish a flushdraw for playing back at you

-You punish a weak queen (which might call you down since it's shorthanded and the pot is big) or something like QT with queen and straight draw


Now, if he caps after my 3-bet on the turn, I can't come up with a hand that I can beat. And this is almost infinitely close to 100%. What could he have that makes the slightest sense that I can beat? A weak queen wouldnt 4-bet the turn would it? A flushdraw wouldnt 4-bet would it?


The only hand I can come up with that makes sense is JT. Maybe a slight chance of 99, 88 or 22. Against all of these hands I'm drawing dead. So the second advantage of calling down is also small IMO.


But I think the situations where 3-betting have the merits are more likely. Like the weak queen. Since the action was only bet-bet when checked to so far, and remember it's shorthanded, a queen could very well be the best hand atm, and in this big pot he should do anything to limit the field. So check-raise the bettor in late position. Also a semi bluff with a flushdraw could be a great move IMO.


I really like to hear your motivation why you give so much weight to getting a showdown. Do you really think there's a chance of having the best hand after the cap?


Regards

You make good points, but there's one thing with 3 betting to "punish a draw or weak queen" which you didn't mention, and which Dynasty's strategy avoids. Namely, are you going to make an extra bet on the river? I agree, if you 3 bet him when he's on a draw, you cost him more, but if he misses he won't pay you off on the river. So if you just call the check raise and he bets out with a busted draw on the river (which you snap off), you make the same amount of money. If he misses and checks you miss a bet. If he catches you save a bet. However, what about the weak queen? There are MANY cards which could come on the river which might make you check behind anyways- a 10 or J to name two. In these cases you again gain nothing, b/c if you three bet the turn and the check on the river anyways, what's the difference between calling the check raise and the inevitable river bet? If you don't improve with an ace on the river, or if the river is not benign, you're probably not going to put that last bet in anyways (I might not, in any case- I don't know your style of play).


The advantages to getting a showdown here for the same amount of bets are so high I think there's only one clear strategy- call the check raise, call the river bet and hope your hand is good. Did you ever find out what he had?


Leon

Good points. If he's on a flushdraw you often make the same money, although I still think with a 3-bet a little more, because you get the bet guaranteed on the turn.


But you state:"If he catches you save a bet."[by calling]


If you 3-bet and he calls, a flush card comes on the river...can't you just fold? I know this is a hard one to make, but I dont think anyone would try to bluff after so much aggression because almost everyone assumes that you will pay off 1 bet in such a big pot anyway. I dont know if I would have been capable of folding, but frankly, I think 3-betting with the intention of folding if he shows any aggression (either by capping or betting the river) then fold. What do you think about that folding the river part?


"However, what about the weak queen? There are MANY cards which could come on the river which might make you check behind anyways- a 10 or J to name two"


If he checks to me when a T or J falls I think I would still bet. For value. A T or J often bets out because it's so freakin obvious a straight can be out and rather gets the bet then risk the big chance that a worse hand checks behind. I would check when a flushcard comes however. So I would check aprox. 20% of the times and bet the rest. Because if he just calls my turn 3-bet I assume I have the best hand in this (shorthanded) situation.


"The advantages to getting a showdown here for the same amount of bets are so high..."


Please give me arguments why a showdown is so important, because I dont understand it. What could he have which would 4-bet the turn with less than top pair top kicker?


"Did you ever find out what he had?"


Nope


Regards

Hi Ikke,


"If you 3-bet and he calls, a flush card comes on the river...can't you just fold? I know this is a hard one to make, but I dont think anyone would try to bluff after so much aggression because almost everyone assumes that you will pay off 1 bet in such a big pot anyway. I dont know if I would have been capable of folding, but frankly, I think 3-betting with the intention of folding if he shows any aggression (either by capping or betting the river) then fold. What do you think about that folding the river part? "


As you state, I'm not sure if I would be capable of folding for one more bet even when the third flush card comes. This is part of the problem against jamming against what COULD be a draw, but you're not sure- often you pay off anyways. My feeling in general is headsup I'm much more likely to pay off a draw that got there, for two reasons-

- good opponents will bet when a draw might have gotten there, even when they don't have the draw. They can safely fold if raised (ie, you have the draw). There's a big difference between heads up when a 3rd flush card hits and calling a bet, and calling a bet in a multiway pot when that same card hits. If you fold every time this happens heads up I think you're costing yourself money. It's player dependent obviously- if you've got someone who never bets without the goods that's a different story.

- I don't like people to think I'm capable of laying down for one bet when a scary card shows up on the river, otherwise they will take shots all day. Again, this is a function of playing against aggressive, observant people. If they see me routinely lay down when heads up and a scary card comes, it would be too weak.


In any case you seem quite able to play strong and then dump when you sense strength, so maybe for you a 3 bet on the turn, dump on the river if the flush gets there is in order. Me, I'd pay off more in this situation. Not that that's a reason to refrain from punishing the draw, but I wouldn't be able to save a bet by dumping on the river. I'd only save a bet by not putting it in on the turn- and sometimes I'd miss a bet if he missed, as I stated earlier.


As far as the 10 or J being scare cards- it's not that I'm so scared of the straight, but he could have Q10 or QJ as a hand and decide to check call the river with two pair. Some people play this way. When you speak of weak queens, these hands could certainly be included. Thus, a check on the river by your opponent when this kind of card shows up doesn't mean you still have the best hand. I'm not saying checking two pair on the end is right, but would you bet into them is the question? Here I think I would definitely check the river and hope my hand is good. There's also the fact that if he can't beat top pair, top kicker with a board of 8910Qx, what could he call your river bet with? A lot of times this isn't a value bet, but a wasted bet- one of those "you only will get called by a better hand" type bets. If my opponent was a real weaky I might value bet, but it's close.


The advantage here of a showdown is just that- a showdown for the same amount of bets. It's not that a showdown here is better than other showdowns, but simply that I think you're not making the extra money you think you are when you're ahead when you play it your way, and you lose more when you're behind. Your method in this case costs you the same, but you're never really "sure" what happened. If I stand to make the same money most times given two choices, I'll take the choice where I end up KNOWING that I won or lost.


Good post, btw.


Leon

Leon,


You wrote:


"If you fold every time this happens heads up I think you're costing yourself money."


I agree.


". If they see me routinely lay down when heads up and a scary card comes, it would be too weak."


And I agree again. But the main reaon why I agree is because of the words "every time" and "routinely". If I routinely would make these kind of plays then I'm sure my more observant opponents would catch up and have a huge advantage over me. But IMO this is not a "routine" situation. The main reason I posted this hand is because it was a kind of unusual play, but which I thought might have advantages if used rarely, in the right situations. So see it as another weapon to deviate your play, rather than a routine play.


"In any case you seem quite able to play strong and then dump when you sense strength, so maybe for you a 3 bet on the turn, dump on the river if the flush gets there is in order."


Well...to be honest, exactly the opposite. I don't like folding on the river heads up at all. And I think the opponents I play against know that. And that's why I think it's a good play for me if used rarely. Because my opponents KNOW I'm going to pay off. And that's why they wouldnt bluff IMO. And that's why I dont have to pay off a bet. But again, I should only do this rarely.


"As far as the 10 or J being scare cards- it's not that I'm so scared of the straight, but he could have Q10 or QJ as a hand and decide to check call the river with two pair."


Certainly true. But they could also have Q9, Q8 etc etc. Shorthanded most people I play against play way too loose preflop. If they want to check-call two pair, fine. Sure, I wouldnt win 100% of the times when I bet the river after they check. But for it to be a value bet I only have to beat them >50%. And I think I can manage that.


"There's also the fact that if he can't beat top pair, top kicker with a board of 8910Qx, what could he call your river bet with? "


This is a definetely "yes" in my experience. In this big of a pot I've seen no-one (oh well...almost) lay down top pair for one bet. And they are often correct to do so. Because would you like to be the kind of guy who folds the river in a big pot for one bet? ;-)


"...but simply that I think you're not making the extra money you think you are when you're ahead when you play it your way, and you lose more when you're behind. Your method in this case costs you the same, but you're never really "sure" what happened. "


This is where we really disagree. I stated my reasons in a different and this post, you yours. Atm I still think you make more by 3-betting and folding to any strength than calling down (taking the showdown guarantee out of the picture). But I'll rethink this.


Thanks for your posts. Very interesting.


Regards

Nice trading info with you. You play on PP as well huh? I'll watch out for you /images/smile.gif


Leon

I agree with Dynasty.


>I really like to hear your motivation why you give

>so much weight to getting a showdown. Do you really

>think there's a chance of having the best hand

>after the cap?


No after the cap there isn't much chance of

having the best hand. But If you are going to

pay another bet to find out you are beat, why

not do it on the river with the cards face up,

while still having an opponent who might bet

a hand worse than yours, or maybe a scare

card comes and he checks a better hand. (

e.g. he's got Q9 and the river makes the

board look real stright-like).