I'm a little girl picking pansies with overpairs

[hate]

I get pissed off every time this happens, but it's a common occurrence, and I keep feeling like I'm playing it way wrong.

No reads at the time.

PokerStars 2/4 Hold'em (8 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is UTG+1 with A/images/graemlins/club.gif, A/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
<font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, Button calls, SB calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>.

Flop: (7 SB) 9/images/graemlins/club.gif, 8/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 2/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, Button folds, SB calls.

Turn: (4.50 BB) 2/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">SB bets</font>, Hero calls.

River: (6.50 BB) T/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">SB bets</font>, Hero calls.

Final Pot: 8.50 BB

I know this is probably a stupid checkup question, but having to calldown with a trash board like that infuriates me.

[jason_t]

I raise the turn. Is that wrong?

[CallMeIshmael]

If not the turn the river.

I think the river is my preferred because:

a) you are WA/WB here.
b) It is less likely that you are 3-bet by a two on the river
c) If he is bluffing, let him continue

I think you have to raise one of the big streets here though.

EDIT: you are not way behind JT, but that seems unlikely given the action, though not unthinkable.

[hate]

[ QUOTE ]
I raise the turn. Is that wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

if that's wrong, then I don't ever want to be right.

[college_boy]

[ QUOTE ]
If not the turn the river.

I think the river is my preferred because:

a) you are WA/WB here.
b) It is less likely that you are 3-bet by a two on the river
c) If he is bluffing, let him continue

I think you have to raise one of the big streets here though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this play quite a bit, for your above reasons.

[hate]

666 posts, huh

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
If not the turn the river.

I think the river is my preferred because:

a) you are WA/WB here.
b) It is less likely that you are 3-bet by a two on the river
c) If he is bluffing, let him continue



[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, "b" is just wrong, since your opponent is not going to put you on QJ or a set. Secondly, "a" and "c" would seem to suggest that you certainly should not raise the river, since if your opponent is bluffing he will fold to the raise, and if he three-bets, you are toast.

So, tell me again why Hero should raise the river?

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
b) It is less likely that you are 3-bet by a two on the river

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get this.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, "b" is just wrong, since your opponent is not going to put you on QJ or a set.

[/ QUOTE ]

From HPFAP, pg 148:

[ QUOTE ]
Many players with a good hand (in the example, it is AT on a board of AT4 rainbow, which, IMO, is about as likely to be ahead as a 2 here) would be quick to reraise you on either the flop or the turn. However, many of these same players will not reraise on the river because they will fear that you slowplayed a 'monster'

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, the probability of being 3-bet my a 2 (note: TT is a hand that is very possibly in your range that just got there. 99 or 88 are not out of the question either) is definitely lower on the river. I'm not saying it goes from 95% to 25%, but there is almost certainly a drop in the number.

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, "a" and "c" would seem to suggest that you certainly should not raise the river, since if your opponent is bluffing he will fold to the raise, and if he three-bets, you are toast.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not raising one of the big streets here is, IMO, criminal and weak tight.

If he is bluffing, then you let him fire another barrel on the river, when he would have just folded on the turn to your raise. Do you not want the extra bet?

A) points out that there is likely no reason to consider charging him to beat you, as, if ahead, he likely has exactly 2 out.

[ QUOTE ]
So, tell me again why Hero should raise the river?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm assuming you agree that you have to raise a big street. Is this correct?

If so, then for these reasons I feel the river is better.
I mean, if the chances of being 3 bet by a two on the turn vs the river go from 95 to 90, then you are better off raising the river.

If you think this should be call/call, then I think that is weak tight thinking.

[CallMeIshmael]

Also...

I just thought of another reason to wait until the river...

If villain has something like 9x and 8x, and is a solid player, he may take your turn raise to mean 'I have a big pair', and will fold, because his effective odds on a call down are:

(4.5 + 3 + 1) : 2 = 4.25:1.

His odds on calling the river raise: 9.5:1.

A solid player is much more likely to call here.

Note: this may completely offset by the main argument behind raising the turn: he might check call the river, which causes a lost bet.

EDIT: there is a hand in the archives somewhere in which Nate waited to the river to raise CDC with AA, because he thought he was more likely to get a call from AK. I know the typical 2/4 players are nowhere near this skill, the concept could still apply VS a solid player.

[Shillx]

The key point to the "bluffing" argument is that he isn't bluffing in the classical sense. He could also be betting a hand that he feels is good, but in reality has no shot. So he might be betting something like 66 or 9x on the turn because he doesn't want to offer us a free card if we have something like AK. He probably isn't flat out bluffing the turn card, but you still don't really want him to fold his 2 outer to a turn raise. You either want him to fire again on the river or check and call hoping to snap off a bluff.

Brad

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]

From HPFAP, pg 148:

Many players with a good hand (in the example, it is AT on a board of AT4 rainbow, which, IMO, is about as likely to be ahead as a 2 here) would be quick to reraise you on either the flop or the turn. However, many of these same players will not reraise on the river because they will fear that you slowplayed a 'monster'

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't believe that the section from HEFAP applies here, since SB has an easier time putting Hero on a hand than visa versa. And given Hero's PF raise, I don't think that most players with a 2 are going to hesitate to three-bet the river. And there is an outside chance that opponent has a better hand which doesn't necessarily have a 2 in it.



[ QUOTE ]

Not raising one of the big streets here is, IMO, criminal and weak tight.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tough talk doesn't automatically equate to solid poker.



[ QUOTE ]
If he is bluffing, then you let him fire another barrel on the river, when he would have just folded on the turn to your raise. Do you not want the extra bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I probably wouldn't raise the turn, since he is either bluffing, or way ahead with a 2, or drawing very thin with a pair. About the only hand we really want to charge is an OESD or flush draw, but the odds of him betting the turn with one of these hands isn't very high.


[ QUOTE ]
I feel [raising] the river is better. I mean, if the chances of being 3 bet by a two on the turn vs the river go from 95 to 90, then you are better off raising the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?



[ QUOTE ]
If you think this should be call/call, then I think that is weak tight thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not crazy about raising the turn because I think we are likely way ahead or way behind. However, I like raising the river even less because I'm not willing to fold to a three-bet, and I don't think opponent is bet-calling with too many worse hands. If you want to call this "weak-tight," go right ahead.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]

His odds on calling the river raise: 9.5:1.

A solid player is much more likely to call here.

Note: this may completely offset by the main argument behind raising the turn: he might check call the river, which causes a lost bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only way a solid player bets this river is on stone bluff.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no way a solid player bets this river.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really disagree with this.

From the perspective of a solid player:

"I think I need to showdown this hand, because I hit my nine. Hero either has a hand like AK or a big pair. If I check and he has a big pair, he will bet 100% of the time, and I call. I lose 1 BB. But, if he has AK, there is, maybe, a 15% that I think he will call (pulled the number outta my ass), but I don't think he bet, so I lose out on 0.15BB."

This is, IMO, not irrational logic from a solid.

[Emmitt2222]

The only thing you can do better is to stop thinking that this is weak/tight and start embracing that you are doing the right thing the whole. Good poker should make you happy /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that the section from HEFAP applies here, since SB has an easier time putting Hero on a hand than visa versa.

[/ QUOTE ]

IN both examples hero raise and was called by a blind. How can it be easier to put a hero on a hand in this case if the preflop action was identical?

[ QUOTE ]

Tough talk doesn't automatically equate to solid poker.


[/ QUOTE ]

I meant nothing personal.


[ QUOTE ]
If he is bluffing, then you let him fire another barrel on the river, when he would have just folded on the turn to your raise. Do you not want the extra bet?

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I feel [raising] the river is better. I mean, if the chances of being 3 bet by a two on the turn vs the river go from 95 to 90, then you are better off raising the river.

Huh?



[/ QUOTE ]

Lets assume you call down if he 3-bets the turn. You lose 4 bets 95% of the time you raise the turn and 90% of the time you raise the river. All other things excluded, this makes raising the river better. My point is: any change, even the slighets, makes it better.



[ QUOTE ]
If you think this should be call/call, then I think that is weak tight thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think opponent is bet-calling with too many worse hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he is. My logic is in my response to the other post.

PS: Im going to bed now, so I won't be able to reply again tonight.

[TripleH68]

There is nothing wrong with the way you played this hand. Once the hand is heads up you can either call down or raise the turn.

Raising the river does not seem reasonable.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]


From the perspective of a solid player:

"I think I need to showdown this hand, because I hit my nine. Hero either has a hand like AK or a big pair. If I check and he has a big pair, he will bet 100% of the time, and I call. I lose 1 BB. But, if he has AK, there is, maybe, a 15% that I think he will call (pulled the number outta my ass), but I don't think he bet, so I lose out on 0.15BB."

This is, IMO, not irrational logic from a solid.

[/ QUOTE ]

For Hero to call down with A-high, he has to believe that SB was bluffing from the turn forward, which is somewhat less likely than if SB checkcalled the turn but came out firing on the river. Consequently, if SB has a showdown worthy hand but wants to eek out a little bit of value from the small percentage of time that Hero will call the river with A-high:

1) SB has to be willing to bet-fold the river;
2) SB has to believe that Hero is extremely unlikely to bluff raise the river;
3) SB has to believe that Hero will call with A-high at least 17% of the time.

Consequently, I think a lot of solid players would just checkcall the river. Nonetheless, any solid player who bets the river is likely not calling a raise with a hand like 8x/9x. And if Hero surmises that SB is assuming all of the above, then Hero can deduce that SB is likely not betting the river with a hand that will call a raise unless he can beat an overpair--and if SB isn't folding, he almost certainly is three-betting.

I realize that all of the above assumes some fairly high level thinking by both players. However, the simpler "I think I'm way ahead or way behind with my AA here on the river so I'll just call" gets Hero to the same conclusion.

[hate]

Don't tell me that you jerk. I'm a prissy prissy little lady.

[TripleH68]

I had to read it four times, but VERY helpful post. Thanks chesspain.

[me454555]

Hero has no reads here and this is a 2/4 game. If villain has a 9 it might be a tough laydown and one that a normal 2/4 opponent may not be able to make.

[me454555]

FWIW, I really don't think he's got a 2 here. Most 2/4 opponents try to be slick and will checkraise you on the turn. I think his most likely hand is 9x. I'm also in favor of raising the river b/c I think I can sucker him in for an extra bet. I hate raising the turn b/c it will allow your opponent to get away from his hand easier.

[CallMeIshmael]

This is a semi-bump of what I think is getting to be a good thread, and some thoughts on the situation.

I was getting flamed pretty hard last night from a couple posters whose opinions I respect, so I was getting kinda worried that I was a complete donk. I see that I got a little support for my line after I went to bed, so maybe it has a tiny bit of merit afterall /images/graemlins/cool.gif. I'm very curious as to what the afternoon crowd has to say.

To recap what has happened: We have gone from debating the merits of call/call, Raise the turn and raise the river lines with the hand in question to debating the EV of a solid value betting a hand like 66 or 9x on the river.

First things first, my thoughts on the river raise:

I still stand by my statement that getting 3-bet by two is slightly less likely. IMO, river 3-bets tend to require a slight bit more strength than turn 3-bets. I'm not saying its a large drop in frequency, but I still thik it exists.

I know the counterargument to this is:

[ QUOTE ]
since your opponent is not going to put you on QJ or a set

[/ QUOTE ]

A) Why can't hero have a set? TT, 99 and 88 are not unthinkable to raise preflop.

B) The straight card gives hero a slight bit of protection from a 3-bet. A lot of weaker players tend to see monsters in the closet, and this is where the protection comes from. I know you will say that it is impossible for hero to have QJ here (which I agree, it is), but this makes the assumption that villian in this hand:

i) Understand that an EP raise from a solid players means one of two things: A pair (AA-TT, + maybe 99/88/77) or two big cards (AK, AQ, AJ, KQ).

ii) Look at a hand that contains a two and say "I want to play this hand out of position against that range of hands."

As the ability of the opponent to strictly define your range of hands increases the probability of his hand containing exactly one two decreases.

IMO, a significant portion of the party poker population that is capable of having a two here (note: this all ignores the unlike 88/99) is incapable of realizing that hero is incapable of having exactly QJ.

You are decreasing the chances of villian getting away from a small pair with a turn raise vs a river raise. In another post, I said the odds on calling down a turn raise vs river raise are: 4.25-1 vs 9.5-1. A good player realizes that his hand needs to be good far less frequently for a call downn to be ok when you raise the river.

In response to this:

[ QUOTE ]
However, the simpler "I think I'm way ahead or way behind with my AA here on the river so I'll just call" gets Hero to the same conclusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm 100% confident, but I am pretty sure that way ahead/way behind only applies to flop/turn play (correct me if I'm wrong).

The idea WA/WB is this: if my hand is best, it is very unlikely that it will be outdrawn. While it is behind, it is very unlikely that it will improve to the best hand. On the river you are either ahead or behind. You don't need to consider being outdrawn.

Me(bunch o' numbers) brought up the point that I forgot. Villian is far and away more likely be checkraise a 2 at somepoint.

For example, if you assume villian is solid, and somehow is in there with a two. He has 2 options on the river: bet, or check with the intention of check raising.

Betting is better if villian will call with more hands that he will bet with (the exact frequencies are on pg 103-104 of HPFAP). You seem to think that the frequency at which hero will call with AK is very low, so this means that hero is only calling with big pairs. The very same hands that hero would bet when checked to, and possibly pay off a check raise with. The fact that he doesn't make this play decreases the frequency at which he has a 2.

IMO, this hand is good more than the 66% of the time necessary for a raise on one of the big streets. I prefer the river for these reasons.

Also, to TripleH: Chesspain and I are disagreeing as to whether or not a big street should be raised. I do see his point that I don't want to open up to a re-raise vs a 2 and might not get called by a worse hand 50% of the time we are called. . I see his argument, it was well thought out and presented. We are simply disagreeing on the 66%/50% rule here. You simply stated:

[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing wrong with the way you played this hand. Once the hand is heads up you can either call down or raise the turn.

Raising the river does not seem reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

It appears you assume the 66/50 rule is true on the turn but not the river. What is your reasoning behind this?


************************************************** ****

Value betting the river with a hand like 66 of 9x:
(note: we are no longer hero in this hand, we are the SB)

In response to this:

[ QUOTE ]
Consequently, if SB has a showdown worthy hand but wants to eek out a little bit of value from the small percentage of time that Hero will call the river with A-high:

1) SB has to be willing to bet-fold the river;
2) SB has to believe that Hero is extremely unlikely to bluff raise the river;
3) SB has to believe that Hero will call with A-high at least 17% of the time.


[/ QUOTE ]

2 implies 1, don't you think?

Also, how did you get 17%?

I get a different number using the logic that (note: the following calculations assume 2) from above, that a bluff raise is so unlikely as to not be relevant)

1. If we have determined that check/call is +EV, that means villian will bet a hand that is worse than ours with a frequency greater than the pot odds are offering us. The pot odds of the check call would be: 7.5-1. This is 11.8%.

2. Betting is better than check/calling if hero is willing to call with a hand that we beat more than he is willing to bet it.

Now, all that we can ascertain from 1) is that hero has to bet 11.8% or more of the time that our hand is good. If hero bets 15% of the time, then hero has to be willing to call with a worse hand more than 15% of the time for a bet to be better.

If we are heads up on the river, and never fear a bluff raise, and are determined to call if we check, I think a bet is better because:

1) You are denying AK the free showdown
2) You are losing the same either way if hero has AA/KK/QQ or the like
3) IMO, people at this limit call with AK more than they bet it in this situation.


I'm not overly tied to raising the river. I feel mixed at best as to whether or not that it is the best play, though I still feel it is. I think I could easily be turned in that opinion.

On the other hand, I feel that if you plan to call if you check and you have no fear of a bluff raise, betting is definitely better.

PS: against certain players, I would pay off the river raise because it looks so strongly like a bluff, don't you think?

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a semi-bump of what I think is getting to be a good thread, and some thoughts on the situation.

I was getting flamed pretty hard last night from a couple posters whose opinions I respect, so I was getting kinda worried that I was a complete donk. I see that I got a little support for my line after I went to bed, so maybe it has a tiny bit of merit afterall /images/graemlins/cool.gif. I'm very curious as to what the afternoon crowd has to say.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ishmael -

I see you "thinking" good poker in a lot of the posts you make. But you are giving your opponents at this level WAY too much credit. These players simply do not think like you and as such your level of reasoning needs to be adjusted to account for that.

I love HPFAP but I really think that a lot of the HPFAP concepts simply don't apply (and are commonly mis-applied) at the 2/4 level.

I'm not trying to flame you. I'm not trying to dissuede you from posting further. I think your posts generate good discussion. I just really feel that you're giving these crappy low-limit players too much respect for thinking.

Those are my thoughts from the discussions we've engaged in - I'm going to read the page long post now.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Ishmael -

I see you "thinking" good poker in a lot of the posts you make. But you are giving your opponents at this level WAY too much credit. These players simply do not think like you and as such your level of reasoning needs to be adjusted to account for that.

I love HPFAP but I really think that a lot of the HPFAP concepts simply don't apply (and are commonly mis-applied) at the 2/4 level.

I'm not trying to flame you. I'm not trying to dissuede you from posting further. I think your posts generate good discussion. I just really feel that you're giving these crappy low-limit players too much respect for thinking.

Those are my thoughts from the discussions we've engaged in - I'm going to read the page long post now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Crunchy, if you ever get around to reading it, fire me off a reply as to where this is true. Because a lot of this post revolves around assuming a player calls a raise from an EP player with a hand that contains a 2. I am NOT assuming we are up against a solid (unless it explicitly states that is the assumption).

Also, I still don't think you understand why I took my position in our posts from before. I went on the assumption that our opponents PLAYED TOO MANY HANDS AND WENT TO FAR WITH THEM. I feel like I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but I'm going to keep repeating it until you understand that I assume my opponents are poor, and want to do everything I can to capitalize on that.

Also, just because HPFAP contains the word advanced in the title, it doesn't always assume your opponents are advanced (ie. the loose games section). Throwing the concepts from that book out the window until 15/30 is a mistake, IMO.

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]

A) Why can't hero have a set? TT, 99 and 88 are not unthinkable to raise preflop.


[/ QUOTE ]

He can - but the donkey with 72 is only sitting there creaming about how great his hand is. He could care less about what Hero has.

[ QUOTE ]

B) The straight card gives hero a slight bit of protection from a 3-bet. A lot of weaker players tend to see monsters in the closet, and this is where the protection comes from.


[/ QUOTE ]

See above comment.

[ QUOTE ]

I know you will say that it is impossible for hero to have QJ here (which I agree, it is), but this makes the assumption that villian in this hand:

i) Understand that an EP raise from a solid players means one of two things: A pair (AA-TT, + maybe 99/88/77) or two big cards (AK, AQ, AJ, KQ).


[/ QUOTE ]

See above as well. Donkey could care less. To Donkey it's just a bigger pot to win if he hits with 52o.

[ QUOTE ]

ii) Look at a hand that contains a two and say "I want to play this hand out of position against that range of hands."


[/ QUOTE ]

Donkey says: "Position - what's that. I always take the female avatar at the table cause I like big butts and I can not lie"


[ QUOTE ]
As the ability of the opponent to strictly define your range of hands increases the probability of his hand containing exactly one two decreases.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OP: No reads at the time

[/ QUOTE ]

At this level the FISH out-number the TAGs. I'm not giving anyone credit for thinking until proven otherwise.


[ QUOTE ]
IMO, a significant portion of the party poker population that is capable of having a two here (note: this all ignores the unlike 88/99) is incapable of realizing that hero is incapable of having exactly QJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. Because they're not thinking about ANY possible hands that Hero might be holding. They only think about themselves. I'm stopping now - I've made my point.

Let me say again - I'm not flaming you. This is important!! Giving these 2/4 nits too much credit is a BIG LEAK!!!

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, just because HPFAP contains the word advanced in the title, it doesn't always assume your opponents are advanced (ie. the loose games section). Throwing the concepts from that book out the window until 15/30 is a mistake, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

My copy of HPFAP is older - I believe it's the edition that came out just after they published the "loose games" section. If it's been updated since then I'm not current.

From what I've read in my copy and from what you've referenced in your posting I'm just not convinced that this is good advice for online games &lt; 5/10 in limit. This is just my opinion.

[CallMeIshmael]

No offense dude, but it seems you came in half way through this movie, and you have no idea wft is going on. (no flame intended, I do really enjoy debating with you)

If you do intend to post again, reread the entire thread.

The overall idea of chesspain's argument that a river raise is no less likely to be 3-bet than a turn raise, is that a player with a 2 is incapable of believing that you can have QJ and I said that most don't realize this.

And you come back with "You are giving them too much credit"?????

Also, you seem to think we are up against a COMPLETE DONK. If so, a raise on either steet seems becomes an even better play, because he could have complete crap and will call you down.

Are you honestly suggesting that:

1) This player is a complete donk. 72, 52, these are the hands he calls a raise with.

2) We are not good 66% of the time.

(PS: If you reply, I won't be able to reply to that for like an hour)

[zimmer879]

I think there may be a bit of overanalysis going on here. It is very very unllkey sb has a 2 for two reasons:

1.) He would likely checkraise a 2

and far more importantly

2.) Low limit players love betting when the turn pairs the board, especially headsup.

I think the choice here is to raise the turn or river, and I prefer the turn. It's a draw heavy board, and if he misses his draw there's no guarantee he'll bluff again on the river. Make him pay on the turn. Even if he's bluffing overcards, he'll probably call. If he has a T,9, or pp he'll probably pay off anyway, although a read would be helpful here.

[crunchy1]

I have (had) read the entire thread and I understand exactly wtf is going on.

I also see many references by yourself suggesting lines/thinking that villian would take if he was a solid player. I'm saying that this is a poor assumption to make when we have a zero read.

It's not neccesarily that this player is a "COMPLETE DONK" - I exaggerated my point for the sake of argument. What we need to NOT assume is that this player thinks like we do - a very high percentage of the time at 2/4 they DO NOT. If we consistently give credit where credit is not due both the magnitude of the error and the frequency with which is occurs make this a BIG LEAK. This is the only point I'm trying to make here.

This point I'm making is irrelevant to the hand itself - it IS relevant to analyzing this hand and other hands at this level.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you honestly suggesting that:

1) This player is a complete donk. 72, 52, these are the hands he calls a raise with.

2) We are not good 66% of the time.


[/ QUOTE ]

#1 - No. But I would not be surprised to see a call in the SB by an unknown player at this level with either of those two hands. Just last night I raised AA UTG and was immediately cold-called by 62s UTG+1.

#2 - I'm not sure with what level of accuracy you can put a percentage on how often we're good (especially against an unknown).

My 2 cents on the hand:
Against an unkown - who decided to lead into a PF raiser on the turn when the board pairs - I'm feeling much better about calling down and maybe missing a bet than I am about getting 3-bet on the turn or river. I may miss one bet now but, it's better than losing 3 and the information I gain will easily recover that single bet later on.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I also see many references by yourself suggesting lines/thinking that villian would take if he was a solid player. I'm saying that this is a poor assumption to make when we have a zero read.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. It is incorrect to assume this.

If this player is a complete donk, however, and will defend with any two cards, I think it is an even easier raise.

You have 88% equity against a random hand. I'm not convinved that drops more than 20% when he leads the turn.

The reason I am bring up a solid player is this: a solid is unlikely to have a 2, and if he does, it is unlikely that he would play it this way.

If he is a donk, he could have any 2 cards. You beat any 2 cards very frequently here.

[ QUOTE ]
If we consistently give credit where credit is not due both the magnitude of the error and the frequency with which is occurs make this a BIG LEAK. This is the only point I'm trying to make here.

[/ QUOTE ]

see above.

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Are you honestly suggesting that:

1) This player is a complete donk. 72, 52, these are the hands he calls a raise with.

2) We are not good 66% of the time.


[/ QUOTE ]

#1 - No. But I would not be surprised to see a call in the SB by an unknown player at this level with either of those two hands. Just last night I raised AA UTG and was immediately cold-called by 62s UTG+1.

#2 - I'm not sure with what level of accuracy you can put a percentage on how often we're good (especially against an unknown).



[/ QUOTE ]

I was discussing the probabilty of the union of these two sets, not the probability sets individually. I'm well aware that some players will play any two /images/graemlins/smile.gif (especially from the BB).

IE: What is the probability of a player who is willing to call preflop with any two cards also having a hand that contains a 2 (or any other hand that beats us)?

As you said, it is difficult to accurately estimate the probability that we are good here. Once you figure in that a great percentage of the time we are not good here, villian checks (with the intention of CR) I think it is still &gt; 66%.

If you got checkraised, I think we can all agree that it is now less than 66%.

[ QUOTE ]

My 2 cents on the hand:
Against an unkown - who decided to lead into a PF raiser on the turn when the board pairs - I'm feeling much better about calling down and maybe missing a bet than I am about getting 3-bet on the turn or river. I may miss one bet now but, it's better than losing 3 and the information I gain will easily recover that single bet later on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Losing one bet now instead of losing **2** is not OK if your hand is good more frequently than 66% of the time, and 50% of the time you are called (and, since we are assuming donkiness, I think this is true).

[TheHip41]

Raise the turn, everytime. If he doesn't have a 2, you have him stroked. If he had a 2, wouldn't he c/r?

[private joker]

[ QUOTE ]
Raise the turn, everytime. If he doesn't have a 2, you have him stroked.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying you want a hand drawing slim to dead to fold? Read up more on way ahead/way behind hands.

[ QUOTE ]
If he had a 2, wouldn't he c/r?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. Either way, I like calling the turn and river. You keep a worse hand betting for you and you lose less to a better hand. You'll win more often than you lose, but raising the turn will just fold hands you wish would not fold. Raising the river might get a worse hand to call, but because you can't fold to a 3-bet, you shouldn't raise.

[Reprocess]

90% of these semi stop and goes are utter bs. they are mid pair or worse. Its more likely you are on AK, AJ, QK etc from their point of veiw. They dotn think about higher pair for the most part they see they floped an 8 or a 9 and see that you missed on your broadways. A two is a both a safe card for them and a scare card for you. Not raising the turn is criminal and sometimes you get a retard three betting wih 98. If you lost this hand, thats too bad, but not raising the turn here is letting him see cards cheaply and costing you money in the long run for sure.

[marching_on_together]

I think your thinking is generally fine here, and your not giving villian too much credit as has been suggested.

I often like the call call line heads up but here with how the hand has been played out i really struggle to see hero being behind any more than 20 % of the time(and i'm being really generous). With no reads i assume average, the avarage 2-4er is not calling a raise with a two pre-flop yes there poor but it takes a special breed to be that poor. You might be behind a set but as has been suggested the ave 2-4er is check raising this somewhere. I like the river raise as you are so often ahead here plus your raise will be called by worse hands the majority of the time at this level.

You're correct regarding getting 3-bet on the river if villian does have a two it is slightly less likely than on the turn.

[marching_on_together]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Raise the turn, everytime. If he doesn't have a 2, you have him stroked.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying you want a hand drawing slim to dead to fold? Read up more on way ahead/way behind hands.

[ QUOTE ]
If he had a 2, wouldn't he c/r?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. Either way, I like calling the turn and river. You keep a worse hand betting for you and you lose less to a better hand. You'll win more often than you lose, but raising the turn will just fold hands you wish would not fold. Raising the river might get a worse hand to call, but because you can't fold to a 3-bet, you shouldn't raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I often like the call call line too, if the 2s were j,q,k,10s then i would most certainly play that your way. But here i feel hero is so often ahead on the river and will have his raise so often called by worse hands that this is a value raise at this level.

[Reprocess]

I forgot to point out the following: My initial response was to raise the turn, then I thought raising the river was a "safer" play as you will get three bet by 2 less likely but 30 seconds more thought make raising the turn a clear desicion.

If he has a 9 or 8 or lower pp, he doesnt want the turn checked through as he is proably ahead (no broadways) and the two may scare a weak player with ak etc. If he doenst have a pair there is a club flush draw out there, that ive had ppl semi bluff into me with and 98 hit about every straight draw. I think you have to raise the turn. If he three bets call down. If he bets into you on the river when the T comes I probably would just call. Just my thoughts and how I play this hand every time time against an unknown.

Also, for those saying raise the river, remember we dont know the T /images/graemlins/diamond.gif is comming. I think you need to evealutat the turn desicion independantly of what hits on the river.

[CallMeIshmael]

I really really dont want to fold out a hand that has two outs here. This is, after all, very likely WA/WB.

If he is bluffing, then sometimes he continues the bluff on the river and sometimes he catches something to pay you off when he would have folded to the turn raise.

The pot is not too big, nor does villian likely have enough outs, for hero to need to worry about protection here.

[Reprocess]

I dont see it as protecting as I see it a play against an unknown, read bad. Every hand that I described will most almost certainly call the turn raise unless they were on absolutely nothing, and even sometimes those ppl will too.( you are almost certainly ahead here, I think giving them bad odds to draw to beat you is the best play, this is more a value raise than anything) A pair or draw isnt laying it down. If they are on a draw and continue with the semi bluff on the river you gain the same amount of bets but they see the river cheaply, if they wouldnt continue with the semi bluff then you gain 1 bet.

You are taking this hand to showdown, I agree they are more likely to three bet the turn with a 2 than the river, saving you 1 bb some of the time. But I think you have to charge hands that are behind the opportunity to beat you. Its amazing what the party fish will call with.

I can see the argument for raising the river. The main point is ther needs to be a raise SOMEWHERE. I raise the turn for the reasons I listed, again if others disagree with me and raising the turn is wrong, it cant be by much at all.

[CallMeIshmael]

I would say against most complete tards who are likely to call to the river with any two, then yes, the turn raise is better, because you cant know for sure that he will bet the river.

Against marginally decent opposition, who are folding 100% of their complete bluffs and a decent percentage of their weak pairs (I fold a pair here against straight forward opposition) raising the river is better.

[Catt]

I really like that you're putting a lot of thought into your posts and replies. I don't think you were getting flamed; others just argued in favor of a different course of action. I've read through the whole thread a few times, and here is what I think:

[ QUOTE ]
If not the turn the river.

I think the river is my preferred because:

a) you are WA/WB here.
.
[. . . next quote from later post . . .]
.
I'm [not] 100% confident, but I am pretty sure that way ahead/way behind only applies to flop/turn play (correct me if I'm wrong).

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the WA/WB line applies to all streets. The idea is you get to showdown putting in one bet on each street. When you're OOP, you often have to put 2 bets in on the river via bet/calling because you don't want to offer a free showdown but also will not fold to a raise. In our case Hero has position and need only call the river bet.

[ QUOTE ]
The overall idea of Chesspain's argument that a river raise is no less likely to be 3-bet than a turn raise, is that a player with a 2 is incapable of believing that you can have QJ and I said that most don't realize this.
.
[. . . from a different post . . .]
.
Chesspain and I are disagreeing as to whether or not a big street should be raised.

[/ QUOTE ]

The only arguments I've seen from Chesspain are arguments about whether or not a raise makes sense (whether on the turn or the river). He thinks it does not; you think:

[ QUOTE ]
I think you have to raise one of the big streets here though.
.
[. . .]
.
Not raising one of the big streets here is, IMO, criminal and weak tight.

[/ QUOTE ]

The entire discussion between you and Chesspain, from a reader's perspective, is whether or not a raise makes sense, regardless of turn or river. I follow Chesspain's arguments about why it doesn't make sense. I don't follow your arguments about why it makes sense.

As far as I can see, your argument for a raise is that not putting one in on a big street is weak-tight. That's not a substantive argument. You need to explain why it is weak-tight (i.e., convince me that we're ahead at least 66% of the time).

At one point (in the very beginning) you say we are WA/WB. You later say that you think the WA/WB only applies to the flop and turn and you may deviate from it on the river, which implies to me that you still think we're WA/WB on the river but don't want to be weak-tight. Unfortunately, there is the whole side discussion about whether or not we're WA/WB or we're good better than 66% of the time.

What new piece of information have we learned on the river that changes this from a WA/WB situation into a "we're good here 66% of the time" situation? What changed from your initial post of "WA/WB" to "good 66%"?

If we are WA/WB, raises make no sense, whether on turn or river. I believe that is the substance of Chesspain's argument.

If we are good 66% of the time by the river, then it's an interesting discussion of whether to raise the turn or the river. I would prefer the river as this hand played out.

Edit: I know I am conflating WA/WB with % ahead / % behind when they are distinct concepts - but I am doing so because I think it teases ouot the distinct arguments a bit better.

[marching_on_together]

[ QUOTE ]
(i.e., convince me that we're ahead at least 66% of the time

[/ QUOTE ]

Does anyone really think we are not ahead at least this % of the time? I don't think this is the debatable point what is is how often your raise will be called by a worse hand and will this be enough times to compensate for the times you are 3-bet and have to call. My opinion is that it will.

[zimmer879]

Why is everyone assuming he has a weak made hand - which by the way he probably wouldn't fold to a raise anyway. A flop of 89x with 2 suits is going to give a lot of hands at least a gutshot draw, and most of them ain't going anywhere to your turn raise. This is not about protecting your hand, it's about getting the money in the pot when you can. Also note, this would be an entirely different situation if the board were K722 rainbow.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe the WA/WB line applies to all streets. The idea is you get to showdown putting in one bet on each street. When you're OOP, you often have to put 2 bets in on the river via bet/calling because you don't want to offer a free showdown but also will not fold to a raise. In our case Hero has position and need only call the river bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I pulled out the definiton of a WA/WB sitution from the following website: http://www.cardschat.com/showthread.php?t=351

[ QUOTE ]

Let's start with some definitions:

WAY AHEAD: You are way ahead in the hand when your hand is currently far superior to your opponent's hand, and the turn or river card is unlikely to give your opponent the winning hand. More specifically, we'll say that you are way ahead if your opponent has 3 outs or less (note that we're only talking about heads-up situations).
Examples:
--Dominating hands like AJ vs. A9 on a board of A 2 3 (3 outs) or J 9 2 (2 outs)
--Top pair vs. an underpair like QT vs. JJ on a board of Q 7 2 (2 outs)

WAY BEHIND: You are way behind in the hand when your hand is currently far inferior to your opponent's hand, and the turn or river card is unlikely to give you the winning hand. The converse of being way ahead, we are way behind when we have 3 or fewer outs against our opponent


[/ QUOTE ]

These definitions hinge on the fact that there are more cards to come. Once the river has been dealt, your hand is no longer way ahead or behind, it is merely either ahead or behind. Whether or not your opponents hand is defined as three twos, and pair of nines, or a full house is irrelevant. Either you are ahead or behind. Where his hand is listed on the rank of poker hands is not of importance. It just matters if it is higher or lower than where your hand is listed.

[ QUOTE ]
The entire discussion between you and Chesspain, from a reader's perspective, is whether or not a raise makes sense, regardless of turn or river. I follow Chesspain's arguments about why it doesn't make sense. I don't follow your arguments about why it makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. Chesspain and I are not disagreeing as to whether or not a raise is right on the river, but whether or not a raise should go in on a big street.

[ QUOTE ]

As far as I can see, your argument for a raise is that not putting one in on a big street is weak-tight. That's not a substantive argument. You need to explain why it is weak-tight (i.e., convince me that we're ahead at least 66% of the time).

[/ QUOTE ]

For a raise to be correct you have to have the best hand 66% of the time (though I argue it is slightly lower in this case) and have a worse hand call you 50% of the time you are called.

1) The 66% rule. You have AA on a board of 8922 with now two flush. You are losing to 88, 99, and 2x. You are up against one opponent. The flop went check-call. And he lead the turn.

1) Opponents with a hand better than yours often check-raise
2) He could think he is protecting a small pair
3) He could be betting a draw of some sort
4) He could think that the scare card came and might fold your over cards
5) He could be a complete donk

I think you are good here &gt; 66% of the time. You are good here 88% of the time vs a random hand. Even though he lead into a PFR when the 2 hit, I would argue that since a large portion of the time you are beaten, you are checkraised, you may be good here as much at 80% of the time.

NOTE: When I said I thought it was slightly less than 66%, I meant that sometimes you are not 3-bet when behind. For the love of God I have seen players check-call with trips here before. Sometimes a player will not 3-bet a 2 here, either on the turn or the river.

(I mean, last night I was watching my friend play a tournament on UB. Flop came 7 high rainbow. Turn and river were both rags. It was checked down the whole way. One player had A7 for TPTK on the flop, the other had TT. Some players are very passive. This decreases the 66% number).

2) You have to be paid off by a worse hand 50% of the time you are called.

This is party poker 2/4. We've all seen it. We all have huge winrates because of it. They like to see a showdown. They will pay off a lot here.


[ QUOTE ]

At one point (in the very beginning) you say we are WA/WB. You later say that you think the WA/WB only applies to the flop and turn and you may deviate from it on the river, which implies to me that you still think we're WA/WB on the river but don't want to be weak-tight.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the board were not so WA/WBish, or our hand were more vulnerable (ie. Lets say he lead into us on the turn when the board came 892K, and he might have 5 outs instead of two), then a case could be made for raising the turn, right? You want to charge his presumed 5 outter. My point was, that in this case charging isnt an issue.

As stated above, WA/WB is not a river concept. Just as you woulnd't 'charge a flush draw' on the river. The river is conceptually differnt than the flop/turn because all the cards are out.

[ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately, there is the whole side discussion about whether or not we're WA/WB or we're good better than 66% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

The idea that we are good 66% of the time and 50% of the time he calls is the entire discussion. You are getting way too into the whole WA/WB idea.

[ QUOTE ]

What new piece of information have we learned on the river that changes this from a WA/WB situation into a "we're good here 66% of the time" situation? What changed from your initial post of "WA/WB" to "good 66%"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since in my initial post I advocated a river raise, I felt we were good 66+/50+ (im sick of actually saying it after the numbers, and we all know what they mean). It seems like you are attaching the WA/WB concept to certain frequencies of having the best hand. I mean, if you have AA, and the flop is 228 raindow, you are clearly WA/WB, but you are very likely to be way ahead. The concept itself means you should be more willing to risk a free card because it can't hurt you. It says nothing about how often the hand is good.

[ QUOTE ]

If we are WA/WB, raises make no sense, whether on turn or river. I believe that is the substance of Chesspain's argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

And I disagree. I believe a large portion of the party poker population would bet and call a raise with the following hands (all of which we are WA of on the turn):

9x, 8x, a pocket pair, perhaps A-high. Hell, perhaps queen high. We've all seen it.

Note for clarification:

I think some might respond with something to the like of "You are WA/WB on the river, because the hands that are ahead of you are really good", which I do agree with, but that isn't the idea of the WA/WB concept. It has to do with the needs for protection. That is why WA/WB becomes less important in big pots.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(i.e., convince me that we're ahead at least 66% of the time

[/ QUOTE ]

Does anyone really think we are not ahead at least this % of the time? I don't think this is the debatable point what is is how often your raise will be called by a worse hand and will this be enough times to compensate for the times you are 3-bet and have to call. My opinion is that it will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very well said.

I honestly cant imagine that bet indicating we are beaten 33% of the time. That is way too high.

[me454555]

All I'm thinking about is that this is a heads up situation. I'm more worried about letting my opponent get rid of a hand that has little chance of improving than I am about getting 3 bet. I'd rather call here and pop him on the river b/c he's more likely to call w/a weaker hand

[me454555]

Why can't we fold to a 3 bet on the river? Board is paired and the strait draw just hit. What kind of hand would your opponent 3 bet that you can beat? He's certainly not 3 betting tp or 2 pair here once you pop him again on the river.

[ropey]

You are a prissy little lady if you can't understand why you played it just fine.

-ropey

[Bluffoon]

A turn bet makes no sense if the SB is holding a two he would most likely check raise. I put him on something like TP or he is trying to get the OP to fold overcards.

Im raising the turn here and if the sb was dumb enough to call preflop and bet out the turn with a two he can have my money.

[private joker]

[ QUOTE ]
Why can't we fold to a 3 bet on the river? Board is paired and the strait draw just hit. What kind of hand would your opponent 3 bet that you can beat? He's certainly not 3 betting tp or 2 pair here once you pop him again on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

True. You can fold to a 3-bet. The times 2 pair 3-bets you will be rare enough.

Also, the word straight has a GH in it. Unless you're talking about George, the country singer. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Shillx]

[ QUOTE ]
A turn bet makes no sense if the SB is holding a two he would most likely check raise. I put him on something like TP or he is trying to get the OP to fold overcards.

Im raising the turn here and if the sb was dumb enough to call preflop and bet out the turn with a two he can have my money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would bet out into an aggressive player with trips in this spot for this exact reason.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I would bet out into an aggressive player with trips in this spot for this exact reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you capable of having trips here?

[Bluffoon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A turn bet makes no sense if the SB is holding a two he would most likely check raise. I put him on something like TP or he is trying to get the OP to fold overcards.

Im raising the turn here and if the sb was dumb enough to call preflop and bet out the turn with a two he can have my money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would bet out into an aggressive player with trips in this spot for this exact reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not raising here because the sb might have a set of TWOS is inexcusably weak. If you fail to raise because the SB MIGHT have called a raise on the flop with a two in his hand and MIGHT be setting you up for three bet you will never raise unless you have the nuts. You can always come up with some unlikely scenario where you are beat if you want to. Im taking my chances and putting my money in the pot with my pair of aces.

[Catt]

Did you see my edit? I did conflate the WA/WB and % ahead / % behind deliberately. I don't know if it teased out the argument any better, but I like your response.

[ QUOTE ]
These definitions hinge on the fact that there are more cards to come. Once the river has been dealt, your hand is no longer way ahead or behind, it is merely either ahead or behind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you're correct. Nice, clear explanation.

[ QUOTE ]
For a raise to be correct you have to have the best hand 66% of the time (though I argue it is slightly lower in this case) and have a worse hand call you 50% of the time you are called.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is why I find this discussion so confounding. SB's line is so frickin' weird that I have a great deal of trouble figuring we are ahead 66% of the time, and if we are, I find it even harder to believe that he calls a raise.

[ QUOTE ]
1) Opponents with a hand better than yours often check-raise
2) He could think he is protecting a small pair
3) He could be betting a draw of some sort
4) He could think that the scare card came and might fold your over cards
5) He could be a complete donk

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that all of these are possible, but I have a very difficult time buying this and then seeing Villain lead again on the river.


[ QUOTE ]
The idea that we are good 66% of the time and 50% of the time he calls is the entire discussion. You are getting way too into the whole WA/WB idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. Got wrapped around the axle a bit there when pressed for time in a wordy post.

[ QUOTE ]
And I disagree. I believe a large portion of the party poker population would bet and call a raise with the following hands (all of which we are WA of on the turn):

9x, 8x, a pocket pair, perhaps A-high. Hell, perhaps queen high. We've all seen it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have a hard time tying Villain's flop, turn, and river play to these hands, and am still more worried about a 2 than you are and still less convinced that we get a raise called without a 2 in Villain's hand. In any event, it is an interesting discussion and I appreciate your thoughtfully articulated posts.

[Shillx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A turn bet makes no sense if the SB is holding a two he would most likely check raise. I put him on something like TP or he is trying to get the OP to fold overcards.

Im raising the turn here and if the sb was dumb enough to call preflop and bet out the turn with a two he can have my money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would bet out into an aggressive player with trips in this spot for this exact reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not raising here because the sb might have a set of TWOS is inexcusably weak. If you fail to raise because the SB MIGHT have called a raise on the flop with a two in his hand and MIGHT be setting you up for three bet you will never raise unless you have the nuts. You can always come up with some unlikely scenario where you are beat if you want to. Im taking my chances and putting my money in the pot with my pair of aces.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say that I'm the SB and misclicked preflop with T2. Let's also say that you are the hero and can either have an overpair or big overcards. On the flop I'm getting 8:1 to call and this is easy when I have 5 outs if you have an overpair and I'm winning if you have overcards.

Once the turn gives me trips I should bet out. If you have something like AK, you might check behind on the turn if I check to you. So by betting I get 1 bet if you have AK (you call me) and I get 3-bets when you have an overpair (bet-3bet). When I check I might get nothing when you check behind and I only get two bets when I check/raise your overpair. Betting out should be automatic on the turn against a 'thinking' player.

Brad

[zimmer879]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A turn bet makes no sense if the SB is holding a two he would most likely check raise. I put him on something like TP or he is trying to get the OP to fold overcards.

Im raising the turn here and if the sb was dumb enough to call preflop and bet out the turn with a two he can have my money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would bet out into an aggressive player with trips in this spot for this exact reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not relevant what you'd do. It's relevant what a typical 2/4 player would do.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Betting out should be automatic on the turn against a 'thinking' player.

[/ QUOTE ]

As with most of your posts, I totally agree.

BUT... IMO, most opponents who are capable of this level of thinking are also incapable of having a 2 in their hand at this point. Leaving only 88/99.

[Bluffoon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A turn bet makes no sense if the SB is holding a two he would most likely check raise. I put him on something like TP or he is trying to get the OP to fold overcards.

Im raising the turn here and if the sb was dumb enough to call preflop and bet out the turn with a two he can have my money.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would bet out into an aggressive player with trips in this spot for this exact reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not raising here because the sb might have a set of TWOS is inexcusably weak. If you fail to raise because the SB MIGHT have called a raise on the flop with a two in his hand and MIGHT be setting you up for three bet you will never raise unless you have the nuts. You can always come up with some unlikely scenario where you are beat if you want to. Im taking my chances and putting my money in the pot with my pair of aces.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's say that I'm the SB and misclicked preflop with T2. Let's also say that you are the hero and can either have an overpair or big overcards. On the flop I'm getting 8:1 to call and this is easy when I have 5 outs if you have an overpair and I'm winning if you have overcards.

Once the turn gives me trips I should bet out. If you have something like AK, you might check behind on the turn if I check to you. So by betting I get 1 bet if you have AK (you call me) and I get 3-bets when you have an overpair (bet-3bet). When I check I might get nothing when you check behind and I only get two bets when I check/raise your overpair. Betting out should be automatic on the turn against a 'thinking' player.

Brad

[/ QUOTE ]

So I shouldnt raise because you might have "misclicked" on the flop?

[CallMeIshmael]

Sorry to be Eddie Van Bump a thread here... but...

In my first session back since this thread, this hand came up.

Before you tell me how different they are, save your breath, I know. But, in both hands, villian plays passively preflop and on the flop, then when the bottom card pairs, villian leads out on the turn. AND CALLS ME DOWN, even though I raised.

I raised the turn, because of the other opponent and the possibility of a flush draw.

Table is playing very loose/passive.

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (9 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is UTG+1 with 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif, A/images/graemlins/spade.gif. UTG posts a blind of $2.
Hero calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, MP2 calls, MP3 calls, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, SB completes, UTG (poster) checks.

Flop: (5 SB) 9/images/graemlins/club.gif, A/images/graemlins/club.gif, 5/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(6 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="#CC3333">UTG bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, MP2 folds, MP3 folds, SB calls, UTG calls.

Turn: (5.50 BB) 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">SB bets</font>, UTG calls, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, SB calls, UTG calls.

River: (11.50 BB) 8/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
SB checks, UTG checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, SB calls, UTG calls.

Final Pot: 14.50 BB

Results below:

SB has 8h 9h (two pair, nines and eights).
BB doesn't show.
UTG has 6h Ad (two pair, aces and fives).
Hero has 9s As (two pair, aces and nines).
Outcome: Hero wins 14.50 BB.

[chesspain]

This hand is significantly different. Indeed, since you did not raise PF, villian may have been putting you on a flush draw rather than an ace, making his stop-and-go a somewhat reasonable plan...even if his calldown is a little iffy.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
This hand is significantly different. Indeed, since you did not raise PF, villian may have been putting you on a flush draw rather than an ace, making his stop-and-go a somewhat reasonable plan...even if his calldown is a little iffy.

[/ QUOTE ]

By the same logic, in this hand: villian could put you on AK/AQ, and will stop and go a hand like 9x because he doesnt want to give you a free card.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, "b" is just wrong

[/ QUOTE ]


Direct quote from Nate...

[ QUOTE ]
A typical situation: say you raise with QQ and are called by a pretty loose aggressive player in the blinds. The flop is T64 rainbow you bet and are called. The turn is another T that puts a flush draw on the board. You bet and are check-raised.

Now, I think I probably have the best hand, although there's some chance that she'd play a T this way. It's tempting to re-raise right there but there are two good reasons to wait and put a raise in on the river:

1) If she's bluffing with very little, she may fold to a turn re-raise rather than putting another bet in the pot.

2) Waiting until the river reduces the risk of a reraise because the opponent may fear that I have a monster like trips with a better kicker or a boat (I'm assuming the player is wild enough that I don't want to fold to her reraise, but it's worth something to reduce the chance of a re-raise).

[/ QUOTE ]

[SeaEagle]

Interesting thread. At first I wrote up a really long post describing why this wasn't a WA/WB situation. Then I decided that it, in fact, was a WA/WB situation.

IMO, Villian could have:
2x
a FH (88 or 99)
2 pr w/ an 8 or a 9
2 pr w/ a PP (that's not a set)
a flush draw
a straight draw

All the hands but the draws are either WA or WB, and I think the draws are unlikely given villian's betting pattern. Standard WA/WB play would indicate that you don't raise the turn (in the post I deleted, I argued you would raise the turn, since it wasn't a WA/WB situation).

So now we have the question on the river: Are we WA enough to raise the river? I would guess villian has a 2 or 88 or 99 at least a third of the time. I would lean away from a value raise on the river, but I think it is probably a close call.

[brazilio]

Depending on most villains to have a set or full house a third of the time is lunacy. You might not have read most of the thread, but I've concluded that raising the river is preferable to raising the turn.