Common Situation, Unsure of How to Proceed

[spydog]

Villian is 21/13/1.2 after 80+ hands.

Party Poker 3/6 Hold'em (9 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is MP3 with T/images/graemlins/heart.gif, T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
UTG calls, <font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#CC3333">CO 3-bets</font>, <font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, UTG folds, Hero calls.

Flop: (8.33 SB) 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif, J/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 3/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero ......

[chief444]

I guess you're assuming a turn blank?

If I pick up a decent draw on the turn them I'm usually check/calling down. Otherwise what about check/calling the flop and check/raising the turn? A PFR of 13% certainly includes AQo as a 3-betting hand. 32 combinations of AK/AQ, 27 combinations of JJ-AA. You're likely ahead here and I don't mind if overcards fold. If he 3-bets then fold the turn if he calls check/call any river? Just another option.

[spydog]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess you're assuming a turn blank?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. I was assuming the turn was a blank. If I pick up the OESD then I'm married to this hand in a check-calling kind of way.

[Bill Smith]

Check/call, check/call, bet?

[chief444]

[ QUOTE ]
Check/call, check/call, bet?

[/ QUOTE ]
If I think you read 2+2 I raise you every time. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Bill Smith]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Check/call, check/call, bet?

[/ QUOTE ]
If I think you read 2+2 I raise you every time. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

And likewise, if I think you read 2+2, I call the raise. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Edit: I should say though that I'm just mentioning one line not on the list that I think is both worthy of consideration and would be "in my arsenal" when approaching this situation. In other words, I'm declining to vote on the poll because I would play it one of 2-3 ways and try to mix it up.

[chief444]

[ QUOTE ]
And likewise, if I think you read 2+2, I call the raise.

[/ QUOTE ]
But I raise JJ-AA too. /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
Check/call, check/call, bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I don't think so. This is not a way ahead or way behind situation. Hero is either way behind or ahead but villain has a number of outs. If villain has AK here (which we hope) he may very well have 6 clean outs (depending on the turn card). Depending on his view of Hero he may take a free card on the turn. That would be bad. I think Hero needs to be aggressive in this hand and try to narrown down villain's holdings. I would check-raise the flop and (assuming no three-bet) lead the turn and see what happens.

[ErrantNight]

check/call check/call bet is NOT necessarily check/call check/call bet/fold from my understanding... if you're willing to c/r the turn and lead the river assuming blanks you should be willing to check/call the turn, bet the river and call a raise

[meep_42]

Without reading the responses, I say c/r the flop and lead the turn. If Villian 3-bets the flop, call and fold the turn if you don't pick up any draws/a set.

-d

[chief444]

[ QUOTE ]
check/call check/call bet is NOT necessarily check/call check/call bet/fold from my understanding... if you're willing to c/r the turn and lead the river assuming blanks you should be willing to check/call the turn, bet the river and call a raise

[/ QUOTE ]
Yea. I was really just kidding with Bill. But I think him and I are both more or less pointing out that there are other options for this hand than those listed.

[ErrantNight]

word 'em up /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
A PFR of 13% certainly includes AQo as a 3-betting hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Saying "certainly" here is way too strong. First of all, PFR doesn't necessarily tell you anything about 3-betting standards. In fact, I've often thought it would be nice to have a separate stat for that and, even better, a list of all known 3-betting hands that have been taken to showdown.

Second, after 81 hands, the standard error for his PFR is still 3.7%. That means his true PFR could easily be 9%, and might even be lower than that. Or it could be much higher....

gm

[chief444]

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, I've often thought it would be nice to have a separate stat for that and, even better, a list of all known 3-betting hands that have been taken to showdown.


[/ QUOTE ]
That would be nice.

What about "probably includes AQ and I certainly include it in the range I consider"? I do agree that it's hard to get an accurate range with 81 hands. It could even include middle pocket pairs. Who knows.

[Octopus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In fact, I've often thought it would be nice to have a separate stat for that and, even better, a list of all known 3-betting hands that have been taken to showdown.


[/ QUOTE ]
That would be nice.

What about "probably includes AQ and I certainly include it in the range I consider"? I do agree that it's hard to get an accurate range with 81 hands. It could even include middle pocket pairs. Who knows.

[/ QUOTE ]

3-betting stats would be dicey at best. First, of course, it doesn't happen much. Second, speaking for myself at least, my 3-bets much more heavily than my raises on what the action has been and who has been doing the raising. A nice, and related, list might be what percentage and what hands he has cold-called with, although that suffers from some of the same problems. (Such a list might even tell us more about his 3-betting standards that a list of 3-bets would.)

[adamstewart]

I'm torn between two lines, either of which I lead the turn:

(1) Check-call the flop, lead the turn.
(2) Check-raise the flop, lead the turn.


The problem with check-calling is that we're giving a cheap turn card when we're ahead.

The problem with check-raising is that we open ourselves up to a 3-bet. If our opponent is very aggressive, he could be 3-betting with AK or AQ, and may use the free card play on the turn - which is why we want to bet the turn regardless (perhaps not this particular oppoenent because his Aggression Factor is only 1.2).


Betting the flop is a bad line because most of the time you're going to get raised regardless of villain's holding. So it gains us nothing in terms of information.


Overall, I think I like the line #(1) from above, as it doesn't open us up to a 3-bet, and may confuse our oppenent to the point where we may get a cheap showdown (even when we're behind). Further, the times that we're ahead we don't scare our opponent into folding by showing too much aggression.

Thoughts?


Adam

[ErrantNight]

are you folding to a turn raise if you take option 1?

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
are you folding to a turn raise if you take option 1?

[/ QUOTE ]

yes.

[ErrantNight]

then i likes.

[spydog]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm torn between two lines, either of which I lead the turn:

(1) Check-call the flop, lead the turn.
(2) Check-raise the flop, lead the turn.


Overall, I think I like the line #(1) from above, as it doesn't open us up to a 3-bet, and may confuse our oppenent to the point where we may get a cheap showdown (even when we're behind). Further, the times that we're ahead we don't scare our opponent into folding by showing too much aggression.

Thoughts?


Adam

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW, in this hand I chose option 1 for the same reasons you stated. I lead the turn, he raised and I folded.

I think CR the flop and leading the turn is just as good a line as it allows you to make a better folding decision than check-calling the flop and leading the turn line. But that is offset by the times you are 3-bet on the flop against AK, AQ, etc....

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm torn between two lines, either of which I lead the turn:

(1) Check-call the flop, lead the turn.
(2) Check-raise the flop, lead the turn.


The problem with check-calling is that we're giving a cheap turn card when we're ahead.


[/ QUOTE ]
If you are an underdog against his range of hands, you would perfer for less money to go in. We are going to win this pot 50% or less of the time against a normal range of three-beting hands on this flop, so we would rather put less money in the pot on the flop. Obviously that means that he sometimes gets off cheap on the individual occasions when he's behind, but you need to think not about specific hands but instead about his whole range of hands. Based on the information we have, we are behind, so having things be cheap on the flop is advantageous. It may still be right to raise for other reasons (mainly if we think it will help define the situation and simplify later play), but avoiding giving a cheap card is not the reason. If we knew that he routinely three bets with stuff like AT, then I agree that we shouldn't let him off cheap, but that is not by operating assumption at this point.

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm torn between two lines, either of which I lead the turn:

(1) Check-call the flop, lead the turn.
(2) Check-raise the flop, lead the turn.


The problem with check-calling is that we're giving a cheap turn card when we're ahead.


[/ QUOTE ]
If you are an underdog against his range of hands, you would perfer for less money to go in. We are going to win this pot 50% or less of the time against a normal range of three-beting hands on this flop, so we would rather put less money in the pot on the flop. Obviously that means that he sometimes gets off cheap on the individual occasions when he's behind, but you need to think not about specific hands but instead about his whole range of hands. Based on the information we have, we are behind, so having things be cheap on the flop is advantageous. It may still be right to raise for other reasons (mainly if we think it will help define the situation and simplify later play), but avoiding giving a cheap card is not the reason. If we knew that he routinely three bets with stuff like AT, then I agree that we shouldn't let him off cheap, but that is not by operating assumption at this point.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see what you're saying. In any case, it seems we both like the "check/call, bet..." line.

Just curious as to why you think we're ahead less than half the time?

If villain 3-bets AA-TT, AK, and AQ (seems logical given his stats), we are ahead on this flop 61% of the time (by my quick calculations).


Adam

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
I see what you're saying. In any case, it seems we both like the "check/call, bet..." line.

[/ QUOTE ]
It depends on the opponent. If my opponent will always raise me on the turn with an overpair and call with overcards, and he will always bet overcards on the turn if I check, then I would rather check-call the turn than bet out. If he has overcards, one bet goes in whether I check-call or bet. If he has an overpair, I put one bet in the pot either way (since I'm folding to a raise; this is all assuming a blank turn, obviously), but by check-calling I get to see a river and by betting I don't. So check-calling the turn is definitely better against such an opponent. But of course, there are less agressive opponents who will take a free card with overcards and will not raise with an overpair, being confused by my unexpected bet, so agaisnt them, yes, I like the stop-and-go. Also, I don't think check-raising the flop is out of the question if I'm against an opponent such that it will make the rest of the hand easier to play. I just don't like check-raising the flop for the purpose of not giving a cheap card, since I'm not really ahead against his range of hands anyway. I was really objecting to the reasoning and not the play.

[ QUOTE ]
Just curious as to why you think we're ahead less than half the time?

If villain 3-bets AA-TT, AK, and AQ (seems logical given his stats), we are ahead on this flop 61% of the time (by my quick calculations).

[/ QUOTE ]
What's important isn't how often we are ahead on the flop. What's important is how often we are winning in a showdown. Even if we are usually ahead, it is relatively easy for him to catch up (six outs) when we are and when we are behind it is relatively hard for us to catch up (two outs plus the bd straight draw), so we still end up losing at a showdown more than 50% of the time even if we would have the best hand more than 50% in a theoretical world where no turn and river cards were going to be dealt. Also, I'm assuming that he won't always three-bet with AQo. I don't know if that's accurate for this game. I ran it in pokerstove earlier and if he three-bets AA-JJ, AK and AQ, we win at a showdown pretty much exactly 50% of the time. If we remove AQ, we usually lose. Since he may or may not three-bet AQ, then we have to someone reduce the likelihood of that which pushes us below 50%. If he will also three-bet things like TT, AJ and KQ that helps a little bit, but not that much since we are tied with TT, losing to AJ and KQ isn't in too bad shape with its eight outs (overs and gutshot, but two of the cards he needs are in our hand). Regardless, the situation is close on the flop. My main point was that check-raising for the purpose of giving a free card is not an important consideration here, not that we are a big underdog and hate to put money in the pot at this point.

[btspider]

in this case i chose to:

check-call flop, bet-fold turn.

if we pick up a straight draw, we can gametime adjust and check-call the turn as well.

[Brian]

It seems to me that when I check-call this Flop and then check the Turn, AK/AQ/88/etc. bet the Turn 95% of the time. Therefore, I like the check-call, check-call, bet line.

It is of course important to vary your play and not use this play every time.

-Brian

[Siingo]

I picked "CR the flop and call down". Well I would not call down but call a 3-bet and if I do not catch a draw or set at turn then I probably fold here or bet out and fold to a raise if he often is over aggro at the flop with AK high and fold at turn if he do not improve...

But since I did not see this options then....

[Redeye]

A line I will take fairly often in this situation HU against a decent opponent is to check-call the flop and check-raise the turn. (Especially if there wouldn't have been a J on the flop). I like doing this because getting overcards to lay down in a pot this size is pretty nice. It's never going to work on the flop, but I think a c/r on the turn can sometimes push out overcard hands. If you c/r the flop, you'll get 3-bet 75% of the time even if villian has overcards. On the turn, villian may choose to call the c/r w/ overs, which is cool, but will rarely 3-bet with them making an easy turn fold. I'm not saying to always take this line, but I think mixing this in with check-call check-call can be a good way to go.

[Shillx]

1) Check-call the entire way - Up against a frequent bluffer.
2) Check-raise the flop - Up against an ABC player.
3) Check-call, bet turn and cc/cc/bet are both decent lines against typical players me thinks.

Brad

[adamstewart]

[ QUOTE ]
A line I will take fairly often in this situation HU against a decent opponent is to check-call the flop and check-raise the turn. (Especially if there wouldn't have been a J on the flop).

[/ QUOTE ]

One of the main points in this discussion is that there *is* a Jack on the flop.


[ QUOTE ]
I like doing this because getting overcards to lay down

[/ QUOTE ]

Think about this for a second... do you really want someone with a worse hand to lay it down??



Adam

[marching_on_together]

[ QUOTE ]


Think about this for a second... do you really want someone with a worse hand to lay it down??



Adam

[/ QUOTE ]

If he has two overcards then the answer is yes as he would often (and does in this case) have the odds to call the raise. It would be a mistake for the opponent not to call this raise so him folding is indeed a bonus.

[Redeye]

[ QUOTE ]
One of the main points in this discussion is that there *is* a Jack on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

The jack does not change this situation that much because villian is unlikely to have 3-bet with AJ.

[ QUOTE ]
Think about this for a second... do you really want someone with a worse hand to lay it down??


[/ QUOTE ]

In a pot this size, I think its close. Make the pot any large and you absolutely want overcards to fold. The pot will end up being about 12 sb on the turn when villian bets again. If he has overcards he has a 13% chance of sucking out on you. If your check-raise gets him to fold, thats a bonus in this situation, especially if the pot were even larger. This is somewhat different than a way ahead/way behind situation because villian is about 3x as likely to suckout on you, protecting your hand isn't a bad idea here.

Most players aren't going to 3-bet you with overs here. It will be a pretty easy fold if he 3-bets your c/r on the turn. If he calls, thats cool since you got him to put another bet into a pot where you have enormous equity.

You also have to be able to fold to a raise when taking the cc,cc,bet line which is an easier place to bluff raise than the turn IMO.