Am I a wuss?

[meanjean]

Poker tracker is on the other puter so no reads but nothing really stood out about SB...so I guess my query is what to do in this situation with no read.

Party Poker 1/2 Hold'em (10 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is UTG+2 with A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, A/images/graemlins/spade.gif.
UTG folds, UTG+1 folds, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, MP1 folds, <font color="#CC3333">MP2 3-bets</font>, MP3 folds, CO folds, Button folds, SB calls, BB calls, <font color="#CC3333">Hero caps</font>, MP2 calls, SB calls, BB calls.

Flop: (16 SB) Q/images/graemlins/club.gif, Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 8/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">SB bets</font>, BB folds, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, MP2 folds, SB calls.

Turn: (10 BB) 6/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
SB checks, Hero checks.

Is our hero a moron? Or clever in not getting check raised and seeing a cheap showdown? I really couldn't put the SB on anything that I beat. AQ, KQ, 88 came to mind as potential calls from the SB...

Results available if anybody wants them.

[shadow29]

Bet that turn. Call down UI if raised.

[LethalRose]

a lot of people would c/r the flop on a board like this, or at least 3 bet. I think you have him.

checking behind on the turn is a good call, he could of planned to c/r you on the turn.

id bet or call a bet on the river.

[k000k]

Shoulda bet.. AK KK JJ all come to mind, and I suspect them more than a hand with a Q in it, for the simple fact that 2 of the Q's are gone, so the liklihood of him having one are much less.. I bet and call a raise, and call it down. You're afraid of monsters that aren't there as often as you think.

[milesdyson]

In general, you won't get three bet with KQ or AQ.

Villain has JJ, QQ, KK, or the other AA. QQ and AA being extreeeemely unlikely.

I would bet the turn and river.

If raised on the turn I'd call and check call the river.

[Shillx]

I honestly don't know what the correct flop play is. I have given it some thought, and I'm torn between calling and raising.

The correct play on the turn is almost certainly to check though.

Brad

[SeeWillie]

[ QUOTE ]
The correct play on the turn is almost certainly to check though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll bite. Why? Wouldn't a bet give you more information?

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The correct play on the turn is almost certainly to check though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll bite. Why? Wouldn't a bet give you more information?

[/ QUOTE ]

A check will avoid a checkraise and encourage a bluff if villain would have otherwise folded the turn. It's opponent-specific, though, I'd only check if I figured they wouldn't call a turn bet.

Rob

[cold_cash]

If our hero is winning on the turn his opponent is most likely drawing at between zero and 2 outs. A free card can't hurt, in other words.

Checking will also encourage the SB to bet the river with hands he may have folded on the turn.

If he has us smoked, we lose less. If we're ahead, we win one more bet when he bets the river than we maybe would have had he folded the turn.

Against a thinking/decent opponent, I think Shill is right.

Against many micro-limiters, who will undoubtedly pay off with 99, A8, etc., I think I'd just bet.

[Shillx]

I think that he has a queen but I could be wrong.

Why checking the turn is good, here is my reasoning. If he has a queen, we save our ass. If he is dumb enough to bluff at this flop, then he is probably dumb enough to bluff at the river after we show weakness.

Brad

[rafct]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Respondendo a:</font><hr />
Why checking the turn is good, here is my reasoning. If he has a queen, we save our ass. If he is dumb enough to bluff at this flop, then he is probably dumb enough to bluff at the river after we show weakness.



[/ QUOTE ]

Supposing after these checks on the turn he bets the river, would you raise here or just call ?

[DeuceKicker]

I think you wussed out.

What hands could villain have? It's difficult to judge, given his PFR stats. Some GHWs (Gus Hansen Wannabes) will raise with just about any two cards, but play more normally with a raise in front of or behind them. Others see a raise as a chance to build a nice pot (and they don't seem to care who wins it) or isolate you and steal the pot by representing a monster no matter what falls.

Assuming (and it's a big assumption) some sort of 3-betting standards, let's say he'd 3-bet with AA-TT, AKs, AQs, AK, and AQ. He can have AA &amp; QQ 1 way each; KK, JJ, TT 6 ways each; AKs 2 ways; and AK or AQ 4 ways each. He cannot have AQs. Out of the 30 possible card combinations, he beats you with 5 of them and ties you with one.

I'd say he read you as a tight player and figured he could push you off the pot WPT-style. He bet the flop but slowed down when you raised. He could be trying to check-raise you on the turn, but this GHW type of player isn't much for subtlety, in my experience (and wouldn't he have check-raised the flop to begin with?). Raw naked aggression is their game.

I'd bet this flop, turn, and river. If he check-raised the turn then I'd probably call it down.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you wussed out.

What hands could villain have? It's difficult to judge, given his PFR stats. Some GHWs (Gus Hansen Wannabes) will raise with just about any two cards, but play more normally with a raise in front of or behind them. Others see a raise as a chance to build a nice pot (and they don't seem to care who wins it) or isolate you and steal the pot by representing a monster no matter what falls.

Assuming (and it's a big assumption) some sort of 3-betting standards, let's say he'd 3-bet with AA-TT, AKs, AQs, AK, and AQ. He can have AA &amp; QQ 1 way each; KK, JJ, TT 6 ways each; AKs 2 ways; and AK or AQ 4 ways each. He cannot have AQs. Out of the 30 possible card combinations, he beats you with 5 of them and ties you with one.

I'd say he read you as a tight player and figured he could push you off the pot WPT-style. He bet the flop but slowed down when you raised. He could be trying to check-raise you on the turn, but this GHW type of player isn't much for subtlety, in my experience (and wouldn't he have check-raised the flop to begin with?). Raw naked aggression is their game.

I'd bet this flop, turn, and river. If he check-raised the turn then I'd probably call it down.

[/ QUOTE ]

The SB did not raise preflop. The SB bet this flop into Hero and MP2.

Rob

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why checking the turn is good, here is my reasoning. If he has a queen, we save our ass. If he is dumb enough to bluff at this flop, then he is probably dumb enough to bluff at the river after we show weakness.



[/ QUOTE ]

Supposing after these checks on the turn he bets the river, would you raise here or just call ?

[/ QUOTE ]

You call. A bluff will fold and a Queen will 3-bet.

Rob

[SeeWillie]

So, if we are UI on the river, then we call down SB's river bet, and if SB checks, then we check through since he would fold to our river bet with any hand we beat?

[Ianco15]

I'm just curous, what happened on the river and what were the results?

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
Villain has JJ, QQ, KK, or the other AA. QQ and AA being extreeeemely unlikely.

[/ QUOTE ]

This, is nuts. Unless your reading skills are off the charts. I've seen plenty of 1/2 opponents who would bet into this flop with JT, 66, let alone JJ or TT. Doesn't mean they're good players, but it happens enough that I'm certainly not going to instantly put someone on a Q or 88 instantly when they bet.

[ QUOTE ]
I would bet the turn and river.

If raised on the turn I'd call and check call the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

This, should be standard.

I can't believe people are advocating a check on the turn. I would need a very, very strong read to go into a "lose the least" line just because I was bet into and called on the flop. Probably 90% of the time I bet that turn though.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
So, if we are UI on the river, then we call down SB's river bet, and if SB checks, then we check through since he would fold to our river bet with any hand we beat?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, if SB checks we bet and hope they call down with a worse hand.

I'm only advocating checking the turn against an aggressive player that likes to checkraise, FWIW. I'm betting against a calling station.

Rob

[Entity]

Nolan,

It should be made clear that it isn't just a "lose the least" line, and should be employed in situations when villain will fold to a turn bet but will bet the river as a bluff or when they pair up their hand.

This line should NOT be employed against a calling station.

Rob

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
Nolan,

It should be made clear that it isn't just a "lose the least" line, and should be employed in situations when villain will fold to a turn bet but will bet the river as a bluff or when they pair up their hand.

This line should NOT be employed against a calling station.

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear what you're saying. But I think you need a very specific read on a player to determine that they're going to fold to a turn bet, yet will bluff at the river. 95% of 1/2 players aren't that sophisticated I think. More likely, they'll check/fold the river if they were going to fold on the turn.

This is FPS, plain and simple, for Party 1/2. A higher level, and I'd tend to agree more. But at 1/2, I think betting is far superior without a very solid read, which hasn't been indicated by the OP.

[milesdyson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Villain has JJ, QQ, KK, or the other AA. QQ and AA being extreeeemely unlikely.

[/ QUOTE ]

This, is nuts. Unless your reading skills are off the charts. I've seen plenty of 1/2 opponents who would bet into this flop with JT, 66, let alone JJ or TT. Doesn't mean they're good players, but it happens enough that I'm certainly not going to instantly put someone on a Q or 88 instantly when they bet.

[ QUOTE ]
I would bet the turn and river.

If raised on the turn I'd call and check call the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

This, should be standard.

I can't believe people are advocating a check on the turn. I would need a very, very strong read to go into a "lose the least" line just because I was bet into and called on the flop. Probably 90% of the time I bet that turn though.

[/ QUOTE ]
Just to let everyone know, I misread the post and didn't realize that MP2 folded the flop.

I said JJ-AA because MP2 three bet, but the villain in this hand is SB. This changes the hand comlpetely.

Honestly, unless MP2 flopped quads, you have him beat or you're splitting with him, just because I highly doubt he three bet preflop with AQ or KQ (trying to ignore the fact that he folded the flop). I would probably simply call this flop and see if MP2 raises and how SB reacts to MP2's raise.

If SB just calls MP2's flop raise, I three bet the flop and go from there.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to let everyone know, I misread the post and didn't realize that MP2 folded the flop.

I said JJ-AA because MP2 three bet, but the villain in this hand is SB. This changes the hand comlpetely.

Honestly, unless MP2 flopped quads, you have him beat or you're splitting with him, just because I highly doubt he three bet preflop with AQ or KQ (trying to ignore the fact that he folded the flop). I would probably simply call this flop and see if MP2 raises and how SB reacts to MP2's raise.

If SB just calls MP2's flop raise, I three bet the flop and go from there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, just calling the flop and seeing what MP2 does is interesting. I think the only advantage is that IF MP2 raises, you get to see what SB does - 3-bet or fold. The downside I think, is that you don't really gain a ton of information on MP2's hand if they raise, since it could be anything from KK to AQ. Either of those hands would potentially raise on the flop, and you're going to have to spend money on the expensive street to find out which it is. I also think that ruling out AQ or KQ as 3-betting hands is wrong, since there are plenty of times I raise those hands myself, depending on who initially raised and who's still in the hand.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nolan,

It should be made clear that it isn't just a "lose the least" line, and should be employed in situations when villain will fold to a turn bet but will bet the river as a bluff or when they pair up their hand.

This line should NOT be employed against a calling station.

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

I hear what you're saying. But I think you need a very specific read on a player to determine that they're going to fold to a turn bet, yet will bluff at the river. 95% of 1/2 players aren't that sophisticated I think. More likely, they'll check/fold the river if they were going to fold on the turn.

This is FPS, plain and simple, for Party 1/2. A higher level, and I'd tend to agree more. But at 1/2, I think betting is far superior without a very solid read, which hasn't been indicated by the OP.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. This is a play that I use all the time in 1/2 6max play, and I almost exclusively use it to extract more bets against opponents I know will fold the turn. In situations where your hand isn't vulnerable, this line is a valuable one in any poker player's arsenal. Now like I said, I'm not advocating this line the majority of the time, or even frequently, but in some situations against some players it's important to know.

I just think it's important that 2+2ers learn the value of the "check" button in some instances. I can't say for sure that I would've taken the line here, and I don't like hero's line of thought (what would they call me with? I'm probably beat here), but the line itself is an important one for 2+2ers to be familiar with.

Rob

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree. This is a play that I use all the time in 1/2 6max play, and I almost exclusively use it to extract more bets against opponents I know will fold the turn. In situations where your hand isn't vulnerable, this line is a valuable one in any poker player's arsenal. Now like I said, I'm not advocating this line the majority of the time, or even frequently, but in some situations against some players it's important to know.

I just think it's important that 2+2ers learn the value of the "check" button in some instances. I can't say for sure that I would've taken the line here, and I don't like hero's line of thought (what would they call me with? I'm probably beat here), but the line itself is an important one for 2+2ers to be familiar with.

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, it may not be FPS, but I think we agree that while it's an important move to have in your arsenal, nothing says this is a case where it's the optimum line. As Ed has written before, "bet, people like to call".

I can see how this would be much more valuable at 6-max, because people are more aggressive there, and will bluff at rivers more often with unimproved hands or weak pairs if you check through the turn. I don't know it's the case quite as often at full ring 1/2.

BTW, this is a fun thread, when I read it at first I figured it was an AA bad beat thread, but I think the turn play is well worth debating.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree. This is a play that I use all the time in 1/2 6max play, and I almost exclusively use it to extract more bets against opponents I know will fold the turn. In situations where your hand isn't vulnerable, this line is a valuable one in any poker player's arsenal. Now like I said, I'm not advocating this line the majority of the time, or even frequently, but in some situations against some players it's important to know.

I just think it's important that 2+2ers learn the value of the "check" button in some instances. I can't say for sure that I would've taken the line here, and I don't like hero's line of thought (what would they call me with? I'm probably beat here), but the line itself is an important one for 2+2ers to be familiar with.

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, it may not be FPS, but I think we agree that while it's an important move to have in your arsenal, nothing says this is a case where it's the optimum line. As Ed has written before, "bet, people like to call".

I can see how this would be much more valuable at 6-max, because people are more aggressive there, and will bluff at rivers more often with unimproved hands or weak pairs if you check through the turn. I don't know it's the case quite as often at full ring 1/2.

BTW, this is a fun thread, when I read it at first I figured it was an AA bad beat thread, but I think the turn play is well worth debating.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another thing to take into consideration here, though small, is the "tilt factor" that strikes a lot of players when they get checkraised holding aces. As much as I advise players to avoid emotional issues when playing, this can be a tough one to avoid; and if you can't, I think that checking behind may be +EV for future betting round considerations.

This is far from the best reason to check here, especially when betting is going to show more +EV over the long run, but if you are married to aces (you folks know who you are) and can't fold to a checkraise here (and it's hard, given the size of the pot), there are advantages to lines that aren't necessarily bet/bet/bet lines.

Rob

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
there are advantages to lines that aren't necessarily bet/bet/bet lines.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are??? /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif

/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Shillx]

How often do you think a "Calling Station" is betting this flop into a PFRR and PFcapper with a hand that we beat? Not very often IMO.

Brad

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
How often do you think a "Calling Station" is betting this flop into a PFRR and PFcapper with a hand that we beat? Not very often IMO.

Brad

[/ QUOTE ]

That's where I disagree, Shill. Calling station types make stupid bets like this all the time.

Rob

[DeathDonkey]

In this situation I would never raise the flop. Put me at the helm on the turn (after the guy I'm replacing at the helm has raised the flop) and I would bet the turn. Smells like he has a pocket pair and thinks that's a good flop. They always put you on AK.

-DeathDonkey

[meanjean]

River was a blank: SB Check, Hero Bet, SB Calls and turns over a pair of sevens

[Shillx]

Damn I almost hit the jackpot. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

I played a hand just like this.

I open raise KK and get called in 2 spots.

Flop comes QQ6r. Check to me and I bet. Only one caller.
Turn offsuit 2. Check to me and I check.
River 7. He bets and I call. He shows K8 and I drag it.

Brad

[DeuceKicker]

Jeez, can I not read a hand history or what? All that brilliant analysis gone to waste. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
River was a blank: SB Check, Hero Bet, SB Calls and turns over a pair of sevens

[/ QUOTE ]

A turn check doesn't look great now, does it? This result doesn't surprise me at all. Just remember, without a read, assume nothing. People love to bet into scary flops.

Nice hand. Rob's point is still well taken though, against a TAG where you have a specific read, that check through, check-call move is a good one to have in the arsenal.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How often do you think a "Calling Station" is betting this flop into a PFRR and PFcapper with a hand that we beat? Not very often IMO.

Brad

[/ QUOTE ]

That's where I disagree, Shill. Calling station types make stupid bets like this all the time.

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with Rob 100%. There are two types of calling stations in my book. One, the type who are completely passive, and don't show aggression.

The other kind is the type in this hand. They have a PP of some sort, and they like to play fancy and try to take a shot at people. If they get shown some aggression, they'll ramp back. But they'll still call, "just in case you don't have it/are bluffing".

Sounds ludicrous, I know. But I was watching a buddy play recently, as he's working on his first ever bonus on PS. He's playing .50/1, and is working on his bankroll with his uncle. His uncle is a true gambler type - any flop could be a good one, and anyone could be bluffing. I can't tell you how many times there were like 3 overcards on the board when they held a small pocket pair, and his uncle would not allow them to fold. "He might not have it! It's only $1 to call!" I heard that like 25 times in the few hours he was there.

Long winded story, but it tells a point. People like that are out there. Don't forget it.

[Gatts]

Why do you mind if villain folds here? Pot is 10 BB and villain likely has two outs. Obviously, you're making money when he calls, but it's no big deal. Pot is big, win it.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you mind if villain folds here? Pot is 10 BB and villain likely has two outs. Obviously, you're making money when he calls, but it's no big deal. Pot is big, win it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If Villain only has 2-outs, why not give him the free card and the opportunity to win another 1BB from him?

[Shillx]

Or even better, get one more bet from him if he is drawing stone dead...

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
Or even better, get one more bet from him if he is drawing stone dead...

[/ QUOTE ]

Better said than I put it!