98s

[PokerBob]

Canterbury 8/16
UTG here is a solid, aggressive old dude. He plays well from the few times I have played with him.

UTG limps, two other guys limp, SB calls, I check with 9 /images/graemlins/spade.gif8 /images/graemlins/spade.gif in the BB.

Flop (5 players): Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif7 /images/graemlins/spade.gif6 /images/graemlins/heart.gif

SB checks, I bet, UTG raises, everyone else folds, I call.

Turn (2 players): 4 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif
I check, UTG checks

River (2 players): 4 /images/graemlins/spade.gif

I......

[Cumulonimbus]

Bet/call?

[imported_AlphaGun]

should have 3-bet the flop, and now given the action will bet and call a raise on the river.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
Bet/call?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there any way this player raises with a worse hand on the river?

[Willluck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bet/call?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there any way this player raises with a worse hand on the river?

[/ QUOTE ]
a lower flush, however likely that is. I think this is an easy bet/call, considering the aggressiveness of the opponent.

[imported_AlphaGun]

Possibly but he played it an awful lot like a flush draw (most likely better than ours). It is very unlikely that someone ever beats you with a higher flush draw but if we get raised here I do not see too many other possible hands for villain, possibly a 4? I don't know if I like re-raising.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if I like re-raising.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely don't like reraising. I would strongly consider folding to a river raise from a solid live player.

[CallMeIshmael]

Online, I would bet call.


But, if you have him read as a solid. I think you can bet/fold this.

[imported_AlphaGun]

I guess using my logic, it is a fold. I guess I could just never see folding a flush here though.

[gaming_mouse]

I would bet fold or c/call. He made an obvious free card play and most likely has a higher flush draw -- he MAY have limped with another 98s or 54s and been on an OESD, but I think this is less likely.

Since he limped from UTG and you say he is solid, this looks like Ax suited or possibly suited broadways. I think you are behind here at least 80% of the time.

However, the small chance that he was on a straight draw or doing some other weird thing may dictate that you see a showdown. If you feel it does, and especially if you think he bets a busted draw here, I like a c/call.

gm

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
should have 3-bet the flop, and now given the action will bet and call a raise on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is absurd

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess using my logic, it is a fold. I guess I could just never see folding a flush here though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that c/fold here would be awesome. Probably not correct, but awesome nonetheless.

[imported_AlphaGun]

Which part?

[Nick C]

I'm actually wondering if we need to bet. What worse hand could he have that he'll call with here? 88? 55? 87s? 65s? (I doubt he'd limp UTG with that, and if that's what he's got and the suit is spades, he'll probably raise.)

I suppose maybe there's enough chance that he picked up a straight draw on the turn to go with his weak made hand to make betting worthwhile. But I'm tempted to check-call.

In any event, I certainly would have preferred for the 5 /images/graemlins/club.gif or even the 9 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif to fall on the river.

[WillyTrailer]

Is 'Solid Old Dude' really raising his flush draw with three players behind him? I really don't think so unless they're all super fish and he expects them to call anyway. The fact that he is a solid player makes me think he's protecticing something and wanted a cheap showdown.

I'm betting and surely calling a raise.

-WT

[thejameser]

if on a flush draw why raise the flop and scare everyone off? semibluff?

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Which part?

[/ QUOTE ]

3-betting the flop.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that he is a solid player makes me think he's protecticing something and wanted a cheap showdown.


[/ QUOTE ]

What weak Q's is this guy limping UTG?

Then why not be the turn and check behind on the river????

[Grease]

Some people have suggested that the solid old guy raised his flush draw with others behind him, then opted to take the free card on the turn when he missed. This is exactly how a solid playing aggressive player would not play a flush draw. Yeah, he might raise the flop, especially if the people behind are very LP and are liable to call two cold, but he would definitely bet in a HU situation, unless he was really afraid of getting c/r'ed by you. I'm trying to figure out what hands he'd raise the flop with, but check the turn with other than a draw, but his play just doesn't make sense to me. I'm definitely voting against a flush draw, but if he were less experienced, then I would be suspecting one. This is tough, I'll get back to you on it.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
This is exactly how a solid playing aggressive player would not play a flush draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

You could say this about any hand he raises the flop with. [i]

[WillyTrailer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that he is a solid player makes me think he's protecticing something and wanted a cheap showdown.


[/ QUOTE ]

What weak Q's is this guy limping UTG?

Then why not be the turn and check behind on the river????

[/ QUOTE ]

one thing i'd like to know is: How does he perceive you?

I think he'll raise a lot of hands here such 88 or middle pair with Ace kicker or maybe even a smaller PP(or bigger depending on his preflop standards). Maybe bottom pair with Ace kicker.

Regardless, I don't think he has the flush and I don't want to miss a bet.

What do you think he could have that is beating you?

-WT

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
should have 3-bet the flop, and now given the action will bet and call a raise on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is absurd

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey PBob,

I probably wouldn't have 3-bet the flop, but I don't think it's absurd.

You are quite possibly a favorite with two cards to come (although most likely just a slight one even if you are). You're out of position too, which is a drawback to the 3-bet idea, and 3-betting now could keep you from getting paid off as well if you catch.

However, if there's some chance UTG has something like 88 and you can push him off of it with a follow-up semi-bluff on the turn, then that is a potential benefit.

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
if on a flush draw why raise the flop and scare everyone off? semibluff?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good point which I missed. Though I still think the flush draw is likely, it's not as likely as I thought.

He may have wanted to protect some other medium PP and get to showdown cheaply. I may now prefer bet/fold to c/call, though it's close, as he will likely bet his PP anyway when checked to -- your play has given no indication of a flush draw.

[WillyTrailer]

If he has a small PP I don't think he's putting any more money into the pot, especially not after the flush comes.
He'll take his showdown with a small PP as cheaply as possible.

-WT

[imported_AlphaGun]

We are a slight favourite on the flop. By 3-betting we may take the hand right there or we make villain pay an extra bet when we have an equity edge.

I guess we may lose some implied odds if we hit but I think we have a chance at taking the pot right now, which is definately a good thing.

I do not see how this is absurd.

[WillyTrailer]

[ QUOTE ]
We are a slight favourite on the flop. By 3-betting we may take the hand right there or we make villain pay an extra bet when we have an equity edge.

I guess we may lose some implied odds if we hit but I think we have a chance at taking the pot right now, which is definately a good thing.

I do not see how this is absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

Over which of the opponent's possible holdings are we a favorite on the flop?

-WT

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
if on a flush draw why raise the flop and scare everyone off? semibluff?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think raising the flop with a hand like K /images/graemlins/spade.gif T /images/graemlins/spade.gif or A /images/graemlins/spade.gif T /images/graemlins/spade.gif or A /images/graemlins/spade.gif 5 /images/graemlins/spade.gif is such a bad play, really.

It could buy a couple of overcard outs, at least, and also improve the chances of winning by spiking, say, a pair of tens. Also, it could have benefits on later streets (if PBob checks the turn and no one who happens to cold-call wants to bet). Plus, if people cold-call, that's fine. If he gets it heads-up instead, he might be able to steal with a bet on the turn. (Admittedly, Villain didn't actually follow through with this last idea, if a flush draw is what he was raising on the flop.)

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
If he has a small PP I don't think he's putting any more money into the pot, especially not after the flush comes.
He'll take his showdown with a small PP as cheaply as possible.

-WT

[/ QUOTE ]

So what is your recommendation? Bet/call? With bet/fold coming in second?

You've been making good points, btw.

gm

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We are a slight favourite on the flop. By 3-betting we may take the hand right there or we make villain pay an extra bet when we have an equity edge.

I guess we may lose some implied odds if we hit but I think we have a chance at taking the pot right now, which is definately a good thing.

I do not see how this is absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

Over which of the opponent's possible holdings are we a favorite on the flop?

-WT

[/ QUOTE ]

K /images/graemlins/diamond.gif Q /images/graemlins/club.gif, 88, and QJs, to name a few.

Hero is going to make a straight or flush by the river about 54 percent of the time.

[imported_AlphaGun]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
We are a slight favourite on the flop. By 3-betting we may take the hand right there or we make villain pay an extra bet when we have an equity edge.

I guess we may lose some implied odds if we hit but I think we have a chance at taking the pot right now, which is definately a good thing.

I do not see how this is absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

Over which of the opponent's possible holdings are we a favorite on the flop?

-WT

[/ QUOTE ]

We are behind a higher flush draw, and a flopped set (slightly), both of which are unlikely (am I missing anything?). I think we are ahead of most other hands.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Over which of the opponent's possible holdings are we a favorite on the flop?

-WT

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm... how about almost all of them

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
should have 3-bet the flop, and now given the action will bet and call a raise on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is absurd

[/ QUOTE ]


No. Its not.

We are a dog to a bigger flush draw, and a set.

Given that we have an EQUITY EDGE on the flop, saying that 3-betting is absurd, is, well, absurd.

Now, the passive line might get us a free turn more often (as it did here), since, when you take the aggressive line, you are going to be betting the turn. And, you also can't get raised on the turn.

The added advantage of the aggressive line, is that when he has like 99, and is raisng for a cheap showdown, we can make him fold that hand.


Now... im not saying I like the 3-bet here. But, its most certainly not absurd.

[WillyTrailer]

Indeed. My bad. I overlooked the open ender!

-WT

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I think he'll raise a lot of hands here such 88 or middle pair with Ace kicker or maybe even a smaller PP(or bigger depending on his preflop standards). Maybe bottom pair with Ace kicker.

[/ QUOTE ]


Absolutely no way a solid player raises 88 on the flop, gets it HU, and checks the turn with the intention of calling a river bet, imo.

[KDawgCometh]

I like the bet out on the flop, but a CR would get more money in with your killer draw. I wonder if a flop threebet might be prudent here too. the villian is a good player, so you might be able to disguise your hand by threebetting. his check on the turn kinda sucks for you, as he could very well be drawing to a higher flush, but you still have oesd out too. I think bet/calling the river is proably the smartest play. I like this hand a lot, much to consider

[WillyTrailer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think he'll raise a lot of hands here such 88 or middle pair with Ace kicker or maybe even a smaller PP(or bigger depending on his preflop standards). Maybe bottom pair with Ace kicker.

[/ QUOTE ]


Absolutely no way a solid player raises 88 on the flop, gets it HU, and checks the turn with the intention of calling a river bet, imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he has a hand that he wants a cheap showdown with he's surely just checking the turn. If he bets the turn he's opening himself up to being raised and having to pay 3 bb to see a showdown whereas just checking costs him a maximum of one more.
And now that I've read the board correctly, I see that it's not all that unlikely that he would have been check-raised had he bet the turn.

Are you really that afraid of being overflushed that you're not going to bet this river?



-WT

[WillyTrailer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The fact that he is a solid player makes me think he's protecticing something and wanted a cheap showdown.


[/ QUOTE ]

What weak Q's is this guy limping UTG?

Then why not be the turn and check behind on the river????

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know how tight our man is preflop, but there are a bunch of hands he could raise here if he thought it could get him a free card. K /images/graemlins/spade.gifJ :whatever: or a really good one to try something like this with is K /images/graemlins/spade.gif T:whatever:, this hand is loaded with back door draws where his play makes a lot of sense. He could also have the A /images/graemlins/spade.gif with a T or a 5 or an 8 or....

At any rate, I think my hand is good and I'm betting with the hope that he caught enough of something to call.

-WT

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
If he has a hand that he wants a cheap showdown with he's surely just checking the turn. If he bets the turn he's opening himself up to being raised and having to pay 3 bb to see a showdown whereas just checking costs him a maximum of one more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reread the cheap showdown section of SSHE.


[ QUOTE ]
Are you really that afraid of being overflushed that you're not going to bet this river?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Im betting. But, Im treading very lightly. And, if he has like 88, it is a step towards me not thinking so highly of his play.

[KDawgCometh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if on a flush draw why raise the flop and scare everyone off? semibluff?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good point which I missed. Though I still think the flush draw is likely, it's not as likely as I thought.

He may have wanted to protect some other medium PP and get to showdown cheaply. I may now prefer bet/fold to c/call, though it's close, as he will likely bet his PP anyway when checked to -- your play has given no indication of a flush draw.

[/ QUOTE ]


the only possible medium PP I think he's raising here is 88. We can pretty much assume that 99 and 1010 he would raise UTG, so would he really be raising a set o sevens here and not bet the turn, or raise A7s here, I don't think so. But I also don't think that he'd raise a higher flush draw. Given his play I do think that 88 and maybe 99 are possibilties here, it'd really help to know what Bob's image might be here. Does utg percieve bob as a TAG? Bob's bet out on the flop could very well indicate that he might have a queen, so it may not be out of the equation that utg might be raising to protect Q10s here, and worry about bob CRing him on the turn

[KDawgCometh]

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
Are you really that afraid of being overflushed that you're not going to bet this river?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Im betting. But, Im treading very lightly. And, if he has like 88, it is a step towards me not thinking so highly of his play.

[/ QUOTE ]

is it possible that utg might be trying to protect Q10s here or QJs, since it wouldn't be all that smart to raise AQo or KQo from the BB with that many limpers and being OOP. Bob's image could be of a tricky player, so the two hands I mentioned would be likely canidates for a cheap showdown hand

[WillyTrailer]

I don't think he'd be afraid of his kicker as a T since bob is coming out of the blind and didn't throw in a preflop raise. Or at least I wouldn't be afraid of my kicker and I wouldn't be giving any free cards with top pair on that board.

-WT

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
is it possible that utg might be trying to protect Q10s here or QJs, since it wouldn't be all that smart to raise AQo or KQo from the BB with that many limpers and being OOP. Bob's image could be of a tricky player, so the two hands I mentioned would be likely canidates for a cheap showdown hand

[/ QUOTE ]

Though I think he bets both hands, I feel checking a hand like QTs isnt AS bad as like 88/99 here, becauese of the relative vulnerabilities. AND, QTs has a more difficult decision to make when CRed.

[WillyTrailer]

I just read your other post. You give a reason for possibly not raising...I missed it. I still think we're raising two big cards there but it all depends on how the game is playing, eh?

But you're surely right in that we could do well to know what 'Solid Old Dude' thinks of Bob.

-WT

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]

I do not see how this is absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO villain played his hand exactly like he had A /images/graemlins/spade.gifx /images/graemlins/spade.gif. He raises the flop to buy ace outs. If I KNEW for certain that villian held a Q, then I can see how we have an advantage, but I don't know this and the last thing I want to be doing is paying off a better flush or a set that fills up.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO villain played his hand exactly like he had A /images/graemlins/spade.gifx /images/graemlins/spade.gif. He raises the flop to buy ace outs. If I KNEW for certain that villian held a Q, then I can see how we have an advantage, but I don't know this and the last thing I want to be doing is paying off a better flush or a set that fills up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bob, he was talking on the flop.

There is no way you can read that much from one flop raise.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I like the bet out on the flop, but a CR would get more money in with your killer draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but if the bet comes from the button, meh. It was just unfortunate that UTG raised. [ QUOTE ]
I wonder if a flop threebet might be prudent here too. the villian is a good player, so you might be able to disguise your hand by threebetting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do I want to disguise 9-high? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Some people have suggested that the solid old guy raised his flush draw with others behind him, then opted to take the free card on the turn when he missed. This is exactly how a solid playing aggressive player would not play a flush draw. Yeah, he might raise the flop, especially if the people behind are very LP and are liable to call two cold, but he would definitely bet in a HU situation, unless he was really afraid of getting c/r'ed by you. I'm trying to figure out what hands he'd raise the flop with, but check the turn with other than a draw, but his play just doesn't make sense to me. I'm definitely voting against a flush draw, but if he were less experienced, then I would be suspecting one. This is tough, I'll get back to you on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

He plays A /images/graemlins/spade.gifx /images/graemlins/spade.gif exactly this way.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do I want to disguise 9-high? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

What if he reads your 3-bet to read as: KQ or better?

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do I want to disguise 9-high? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

What if he reads your 3-bet to read as: KQ or better?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do I really want to over-represent a hand OOP against a TAG? Also, at the time I gave him a Q, so a 3-bet just didn't make much sense. It all went to hell when he checked the turn.

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I do not see how this is absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO villain played his hand exactly like he had A /images/graemlins/spade.gifx /images/graemlins/spade.gif. He raises the flop to buy ace outs. If I KNEW for certain that villian held a Q, then I can see how we have an advantage, but I don't know this and the last thing I want to be doing is paying off a better flush or a set that fills up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something to consider is that A /images/graemlins/spade.gif X /images/graemlins/spade.gif (and I wouldn't really put UTG on that hand until he checked the turn, by the way, but you were at the table and I wasn't) may let you steal from him unimproved, if you fire again on the turn and river.

Granted, the hand will improve a good portion of the time. But that's only about half of the time (you have two of the spades), and he might not call down if he hits his kicker, and if he does it could possibly make you a straight. And the pot's not empty.

If I somehow knew UTG had a better flush draw, I think I would 3-bet the flop.

Edit: Also, from an equity standpoint, you're still not in terrible shape versus A /images/graemlins/spade.gif X /images/graemlins/spade.gif, as you have 6 straight outs and 6 pair outs.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IMO villain played his hand exactly like he had A /images/graemlins/spade.gifx /images/graemlins/spade.gif. He raises the flop to buy ace outs. If I KNEW for certain that villian held a Q, then I can see how we have an advantage, but I don't know this and the last thing I want to be doing is paying off a better flush or a set that fills up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bob, he was talking on the flop.

There is no way you can read that much from one flop raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK. But my equity is 50% at best again any reasonable holding that UTG has.

[KDawgCometh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do I want to disguise 9-high? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

What if he reads your 3-bet to read as: KQ or better?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do I really want to over-represent a hand OOP against a TAG? Also, at the time I gave him a Q, so a 3-bet just didn't make much sense. It all went to hell when he checked the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

well yes and no, bob. We have a lot of drawing possibilities here, and to represent a bigger hand now also gives us fold equity on a turn follow up

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Do I really want to over-represent a hand OOP against a TAG? Also, at the time I gave him a Q, so a 3-bet just didn't make much sense. It all went to hell when he checked the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're pretty certain he has a Q, then 3-betting doesnt really do much. Your equity edge isnt going to be that big. And, I doubt he will be folding very often.

BUT... if he raises with like, middle pair + overcard kicker, or 88/99, and he is willing to fold the turn UI if you 3-bet, then 3-betting seems pretty solid.

[oreogod]

Okay, if hes a solid player...hes got two things in my opinion, with one being way more likely.

1. Most likely Ax of spades
2.Least likely overcards, which leaves AK -- so I dont even count this at all.

His play is either means a flush draw, or overcards, but a solid player would raise overcards. If he had KQ hes betting the turn. I think if he has QJs or QTs hes betting the turn.

I like a bet, but I dont know, with what I put him on, I either check/call or bet/fold the river.

Edit: I dont really see a small pair here, why not follow through with a bet once its heads up. I can see a turn check by him if he has 88, as long as there are no draws on the flop. If it had been Q25r...and u bet/call his raise, I can see a turn check. As it is, 88 or 99 should be betting here...and the fact u have a 8 or 9 takes down that he has those cards. Of course u have the spades as well, which takes down on the possibility of him having that. But I dont see much else out there from a solid player with the line he took.

Im pretty sure if he raises u on the river, u are beat.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]

If he has a hand that he wants a cheap showdown with he's surely just checking the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I strongly disagree. The brick on the turn is a great card for him here, assuming he has a hand like 88. Not betting it and giving my potential overs/draw a chance to catch is absurd.

[ QUOTE ]
If he bets the turn he's opening himself up to being raised and having to pay 3 bb to see a showdown

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. He should bet and fold EASILY to a c/r.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do I really want to over-represent a hand OOP against a TAG? Also, at the time I gave him a Q, so a 3-bet just didn't make much sense. It all went to hell when he checked the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're pretty certain he has a Q, then 3-betting doesnt really do much. Your equity edge isnt going to be that big. And, I doubt he will be folding very often.

BUT... if he raises with like, middle pair + overcard kicker, or 88/99, and he is willing to fold the turn UI if you 3-bet, then 3-betting seems pretty solid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but once he raised the flop, I put him squarely on a hand like QTs or QJs. It's when he checked the turn that a wrrench got thrown into things.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do I want to disguise 9-high? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

What if he reads your 3-bet to read as: KQ or better?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do I really want to over-represent a hand OOP against a TAG? Also, at the time I gave him a Q, so a 3-bet just didn't make much sense. It all went to hell when he checked the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

well yes and no, bob. We have a lot of drawing possibilities here, and to represent a bigger hand now also gives us fold equity on a turn follow up

[/ QUOTE ]

True, but pretend that you don't know that he checked the turn. I think his flop raise SCREAMS Q. It's not until the check behind on the turn that things get weird.

[Malachii]

Why not checkraise this flop? You've got monster equity in a multiway pot and you really don't care if lots of people come along for the ride. It sucks to have led out, have the solid old dude raise, and have everyone else fold.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Why not checkraise this flop? You've got monster equity in a multiway pot and you really don't care if lots of people come along for the ride. It sucks to have led out, have the solid old dude raise, and have everyone else fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it does, but it also sucks for the flop to whiff.

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If he has a hand that he wants a cheap showdown with he's surely just checking the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I strongly disagree. The brick on the turn is a great card for him here, assuming he has a hand like 88. Not betting it and giving my potential overs/draw a chance to catch is absurd.

[ QUOTE ]
If he bets the turn he's opening himself up to being raised and having to pay 3 bb to see a showdown

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. He should bet and fold EASILY to a c/r.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. Given PBob's read, I think the chance that UTG has a better flush on the river is very high.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
should have 3-bet the flop, and now given the action will bet and call a raise on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is absurd

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey PBob,

I probably wouldn't have 3-bet the flop, but I don't think it's absurd.

You are quite possibly a favorite with two cards to come (although most likely just a slight one even if you are). You're out of position too, which is a drawback to the 3-bet idea, and 3-betting now could keep you from getting paid off as well if you catch.

However, if there's some chance UTG has something like 88 and you can push him off of it with a follow-up semi-bluff on the turn, then that is a potential benefit.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is, but IMO he's raisng 77 and up here pf.

[oreogod]

Yeah on the flop, I think hes got a Q. On the turn hes got the draw. My 2 cents.

If he has anything else besides a good draw, he played it like crap.

[Malachii]

Wow, fast response. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Realistically, I don't think there's anyway this flop gets checked through with so many players and all the drawing possibilities unless you're playing at the most passive table ever.

[oreogod]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, fast response. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Realistically, I don't think there's anyway this flop gets checked through with so many players and all the drawing possibilities unless you're playing at the most passive table ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless u know where the bet is coming from I dont like the check raise. If it comes from LP, why check-raise the field with a super draw?

You only hope is for it to come from EP. Hence I like the bet.

[PokerBob]

I had a big draw, I bet it. It sucked that it got raised. Let's move beyond that. When he raised, I gave him a Q, plain and simple. Some other holdings were possible, but a Q is the most likely. IMO there was NO WAY he is checking the turn with a made hand when a brick falls. It's when the turn got checked through that things got weird/confusing, and A /images/graemlins/spade.gifx /images/graemlins/spade.gif became a very likely holding.

[CallMeIshmael]

Fwiw, this is a pretty clear flop lead, imo.

Dont let the fact that UTG raised bias your opinion.

It could have just as easily been check to the button who bet, or, worse, it could have gotten checked through.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, fast response. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Realistically, I don't think there's anyway this flop gets checked through with so many players and all the drawing possibilities unless you're playing at the most passive table ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be, but IMO not betting here is bad news.

[CallMeIshmael]

I'll also note that I now think check/call seems to be the best play.

[KDawgCometh]

[ QUOTE ]


True, but pretend that you don't know that he checked the turn. I think his flop raise SCREAMS Q. It's not until the check behind on the turn that things get weird.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, I did pretend right there. Logically he'd raise PF utg w/AQs,AQo,KQs,probably KQo, but he didn't. I also alluded in an earlier post that you raising PF from the BB being OOP w/KQo or AQo wouldn't be all that smart. Q10s here for utg has real problems, as your betting out looks like a Queen instead of the oesd+flush draw that you really have. By threebetting we might be able to get him to lay his hand down on teh turn if he has played 88 or 99 in this manner and we get extra bets out of him if we hit by the river on one of out draws, since threebetting there HU isn't really a play that a flush or oesd would make, to boot, we can assume that your image is the one that those of us at this forum see you as, a tight solid player. If this guy is as smart of a player as you take him for, then this is a play that he'd have to respect

[oreogod]

I am most intrested in the river action.

As stated in a previous post my lines are check/call or bet/fold. I dont really favor one over the other...I put him on the same draw...so is bet/fold a better line than check/call?

I probably check/call, Id rather see a showdown. Of course, if he bets the river is check/fold a viable option? I dont think so, just curious.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
should have 3-bet the flop, and now given the action will bet and call a raise on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is absurd

[/ QUOTE ]


No. Its not.

We are a dog to a bigger flush draw, and a set.

Given that we have an EQUITY EDGE on the flop, saying that 3-betting is absurd, is, well, absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK geek, you gotta help me out with the math here, cuz I don't get it. I have an edge if I KNOW he has a Q (which I put him on), which I think is about 60% to make a straight/flush by the river. But there are times when he has a set or a higher flush draw, which has to cut into my edge a bit. If I have an edge, I'm not sure it is so large that passing on it is a huge error. I'm going to Vegas tomorrow, by the way.

[oreogod]

If he has QTs or QJs, u have an edge of about 5 percent. Not much.

Its actually less than 4.3 percent with a range of QTs-QJs.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
OK geek, you gotta help me out with the math here, cuz I don't get it. I have an edge if I KNOW he has a Q (which I put him on), which I think is about 60% to make a straight/flush by the river. But there are times when he has a set or a higher flush draw, which has to cut into my edge a bit. If I have an edge, I'm not sure it is so large that passing on it is a huge error.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well... my post was made assuming that his range was:

-Set
-Qx
-88/99
-like A7s type hand

And, a nice part of the 3-bet line, is that you can get him to make FTOP errors by folding the latter two.

But... if you dont think the last two are in his range, I see no reason to 3-bet.


[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to Vegas tomorrow, by the way.

[/ QUOTE ]


Best of luck! As you are aware, Im a pansy, and afraid to fly /images/graemlins/mad.gif

If they have another one next year, I will book a train!

[Malachii]

As I see it, Villain's possible holdings that are consistent with his turn actions are an OESD like 89, midpair with an ace kicker like A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif7 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif, or a higher flush draw like A /images/graemlins/spade.gifx /images/graemlins/spade.gif. Also remotely possible is a queen with a weak kicker, but that's unlikely since he limped in early position.

Given that I have a made flush, I'd like to take this hand to a showdown, so I don't really like betting/folding to a raise. Checking/calling also might induce a bluff from a whiffed OESD.

Betting out/folding to a raise folds the OESD. It might pickup a call from midpair with an ace, but this is unlikely since he probably reads you for a flush draw.

Given that he's probably not calling with midpair, I think checking/calling is the way to go.

[WillyTrailer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If he has a hand that he wants a cheap showdown with he's surely just checking the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I strongly disagree. The brick on the turn is a great card for him here, assuming he has a hand like 88. Not betting it and giving my potential overs/draw a chance to catch is absurd.

[ QUOTE ]
If he bets the turn he's opening himself up to being raised and having to pay 3 bb to see a showdown

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. He should bet and fold EASILY to a c/r.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. You're right. Not betting the turn with 88 would be a bad idea for our opponent but we can't assume that our opponents are always playing the hand as we would play it. I also agree that it's a fold to a check-raise but it still doesn't mean he's going to take the line you suggest.
If your read is that this player would not play 88 that way then you can exclude this from his possible holdings (it's one of the unlikely candidates in his list of possible holdings anyway since you hold an 8).

Also, if your read is that this player almost surely has A /images/graemlins/spade.gif x /images/graemlins/spade.gif then you should take the appropriate line.

but, for the record, I wouldn't be surprised if a player playing seemingly decent poker took this line with 88, 99 or TT.

not all seemingly decent players think like you do. i find this particularly true amongst the older fellows i encounter at the tables. he probably hasn't read SSHE or HPFAP. 'he doesn't need to because he's been playing poker since he was knee-high to a grasshopper.'

-WT

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
should have 3-bet the flop, and now given the action will bet and call a raise on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is absurd

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey PBob,

I probably wouldn't have 3-bet the flop, but I don't think it's absurd.

You are quite possibly a favorite with two cards to come (although most likely just a slight one even if you are). You're out of position too, which is a drawback to the 3-bet idea, and 3-betting now could keep you from getting paid off as well if you catch.

However, if there's some chance UTG has something like 88 and you can push him off of it with a follow-up semi-bluff on the turn, then that is a potential benefit.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is, but IMO he's raisng 77 and up here pf.

[/ QUOTE ]

If top pair is by far UTG's most likely holding (should hands like A7s be thrown into the mix, by the way?), and the only pocket pair he's playing this way preflop and on the flop is 66, then I'm going back to my original position and saying I like just calling the flop raise.

[me454555]

You bet and call a raise. He might bluff raise you and since you showed weakness he might not think you have the flush either. Pot is too big to fold once the river is bet and raised so you've gotta call. Don't fear a higher flush b/c 1) its rare w/only 3 flush cards on the board and 2) He probably wouldn't raise to shut out the field on the flop. Don't fear the fh b/c he woulnd't check a set on the turn w/a flush draw on the board.

[oreogod]

[ QUOTE ]
As I see it, Villain's possible holdings that are consistent with his turn actions are an OESD like 89, midpair with an ace kicker like A /images/graemlins/diamond.gif7 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif, or a higher flush draw like A /images/graemlins/spade.gifx /images/graemlins/spade.gif. Also remotely possible is a queen with a weak kicker, but that's unlikely since he limped in early position.

Given that I have a made flush, I'd like to take this hand to a showdown, so I don't really like betting/folding to a raise. Checking/calling also might induce a bluff from a whiffed OESD.

Betting out/folding to a raise folds the OESD. It might pickup a call from midpair with an ace, but this is unlikely since he probably reads you for a flush draw.

Given that he's probably not calling with midpair, I think checking/calling is the way to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im pretty much in agreement with the check/call. As far as some of the hands u put him on, I take away with the turn action, I think all mid pairs...A7s,A6s should be betting the turn, Im less inclined to think UTG would be limping with 98s. Not only that there are only 3 other 98s combos possible for him to have, so it cuts down on that.

A Queen should be betting the turn.

--Although some of these combos are possible on the flop, I dont see them as much likely once he checks the turn. So you can really narrow down the card range with his given line.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Don't fear a higher flush b/c 1) its rare w/only 3 flush cards on the board

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagee with this.

IF everyone was dealt 2 cards, the dealer dealt 5 board cards and Bob said "I have a flush". Yes, its very rare that someone else has one.

But... we have to use Beyes here. And, a pretty decent chunk of villian's range is another flush, imo.

[oreogod]

What is it, 7.5:1 or 8.5:1 you'll be up against another flush? So yeah, it doesnt happen often and it even more rare when u do hit...most of the times I have ever been up against a higher flush we havent hit. Although I had KQs in a recent tourny, some guy had ATs of the same suit and we both hit...sucked for me.

[damaniac]

Doesn't this have a lot less to do with Bayes' and a lot more to do with the action of the hand? We can determine the statistical likelihood of his holdings, but the flop raise and turn check is really what we're relying on to define his hand.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't this have a lot less to do with Bayes' and a lot more to do with the action of the hand? We can determine the statistical likelihood of his holdings, but the flop raise and turn check is really what we're relying on to define his hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is part of Beyes.

You use the information given to alter the frequency at whihc he has certain hands.

[oreogod]

I just did the combo add ups in my head...which wasnt much given the action of the hand.

So yes, there is not a whole lot out there a solid player could have.

If he has Ax suited, Im going with A9s or ATs at the least, unless the table was ultra passive.

[me454555]

Yeah yeah, he COULD have another flush BUT based on his actions on the flop, your weakness thus far in the hand, and the fact that he could raise the river w/a wide variety of hands you beat in addition to a higher flush your calling here anyway. This should be a really easy hand. I don't see what all the discussion is about

[damaniac]

Interesting. I thought it only applied to information in terms of seeing an A hit on the turn, say, and then re-evaluating your statistical assumptions based on that, since that makes it less likely he holds an A. But I'm no math person.

[damaniac]

What other hands is he raising the flop with and checking the turn? That's what this has all been about. The turn check really looks like a flush draw. If he was getting tense and afraid with something like 88/99 and chose to check the turn, I'd think that type of player would also not generally be raising the flop with it, if he's going to be scared by a blank (and checking behind to induce bluffs or avoid a check-raise is bad in this situation).

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't this have a lot less to do with Bayes' and a lot more to do with the action of the hand? We can determine the statistical likelihood of his holdings, but the flop raise and turn check is really what we're relying on to define his hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo, and this info sways my opinion of his holding from most likely a Q to most likely a draw, most likely a flush.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
This should be a really easy hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are dead wrong.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
should be a really easy hand. I don't see what all the discussion is about

[/ QUOTE ]

This is probably in my top 3 hands of the month.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting. I thought it only applied to information in terms of seeing an A hit on the turn, say, and then re-evaluating your statistical assumptions based on that, since that makes it less likely he holds an A. But I'm no math person.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as you know the concept (and you do), knowing the name doesnt add anything to your winrate.

[me454555]

How bout a weak king? Maybe he was trying to get tricky w/a stronger king. Maybe he's got a pocket pair and doesn't think you have a king but wants to see a cheap showdown.

Bottom line, you have a flush, and a pretty respectable one too considering theres only 3 flush cards on the board. You can't rely on your opponent to bet so betting out is the right play. You can't fold this hand to a raise b/c you'll be good often enough to make calling profitable. Simple situation

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
How bout a weak king? Maybe he was trying to get tricky w/a stronger king. Maybe he's got a pocket pair and doesn't think you have a king but wants to see a cheap showdown.

Bottom line, you have a flush, and a pretty respectable one too considering theres only 3 flush cards on the board. You can't rely on your opponent to bet so betting out is the right play. You can't fold this hand to a raise b/c you'll be good often enough to make calling profitable. Simple situation

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to read the entire thread. I'm not sure a KING has any bearing here at all.

[me454555]

[ QUOTE ]
This is probably in my top 3 hands of the month.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? What else is there to this situation?

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is probably in my top 3 hands of the month.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? What else is there to this situation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Lots.

[me454555]

Explain

[me454555]

Sorry, Queen, same difference.

[PokerBob]

IMO if you read the entire thread, lots will be explained.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Explain

[/ QUOTE ]

Villians action is so mind bogglingly odd for someone with a made (and that read), that checking and calling is a very possible line with a very strong hand.

[Malachii]

What calls you if you "value bet" this river?

[Emmitt2222]

This thread is too long for me to read so I will just respond with something that has most likely already been said.

There are a few possiblities of why a solid player could play a hand this way-
1] He was on a flush draw and just hit, in which case you are ahead a small majority of the time and behind a much larger majority of the time.
2] Some remote chance he has 98 of hearts but I dont think so and even then he wont be calling any bet on the end
3] Small chance he has a weaker Q like QJ or Q10 which he didn't want to get c/r with and wanted to see showdown with
4] He had some sort of read on you and raised with a medium pocket pair or 7's or 6's in which case it is not as likely he will call a river bet, but there is some chance
5] He has a strong hand like a set which, once he got it HU decided to induce a bluff on the end, although as someone pointed out this is slightly less likely because there is a possible flush draw out there and you dont want to give infinite odds even HU

I can't really think of anything else that a solid player would do so if we add all of these things together, he is usually not calling a worse hand and he is raising with his better hands. This all leads me to believe that check/calling would be the most optimal strategy here.

[me454555]

Your right, his hand is weird for someone w/a made hand or any hand for that matter. He's a good player but he may have just made a bad play. I can't really put him on much of a hand b/c he's played so weird that nothing makes much sense.

I think there is an excellent chance that your ahead of most holdings that someone can have when we entertain the possibilility he screwed up on the turn. I'm not going to be afraid of monsters under the bed and check call b/c I fear a higher flush or fh. I'm going to check call only if I think 1) he's not going to call my flop bet and 2) he's going to bluff often enough.

I don't think these conditions are true in this case b/c his range of hands is so wide. I think he's more likely to call a river bet w/a pair of some sort. If he raises, he may even be trying to bluff a percentage of the time, hence the reason for the call

[me454555]

You checked the turn, and showed weakness. He might think you're bluffing w/the 3rd spade on the board/board pairing, I actually think he's got a wide variety of hands he calls with like 99, 88, TT, QJ, QT, QK, A7 is an outside possibility too.

[oreogod]

[ QUOTE ]
You checked the turn, and showed weakness. He might think you're bluffing w/the 3rd spade on the board/board pairing, I actually think he's got a wide variety of hands he calls with like 99, 88, TT, QJ, QT, QK, A7 is an outside possibility too.

[/ QUOTE ]

If his brain fell out of his head after the flop, then he could have this range of hands.

The only thing I see possible, but still retarded is 88,99 or A7. But its doubtful.

OP didnt say the villian was autistic.

[Malachii]

KQ raises preflop. TT raises preflop. 99 probably does too. All these hands bet the turn, with the possible exception of A7. Also, if Villain has any kind of hand reading ability whatsoever, he'll easily put Hero on a flush if he leads out and bets.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
Given PBob's read, I think the chance that UTG has a better flush on the river is very high.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. In fact, I find it curious that some of you are performing contortions to try to make the TAG's hand be something like 88, when his hand just looks so obviously like a higher flush draw.

[oreogod]

[ QUOTE ]
KQ raises preflop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually not all the time. KQo UTG does not always raise, not by half. KQs is half and half. If Im at a tight table I limp to encourage weaker hands to enter.

Loose table, of course its a raise.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
You bet and call a raise. He might bluff raise you and since you showed weakness he might not think you have the flush either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? Why would Bob have either three-bet the flop or bet out on the turn with only a flush draw?


[ QUOTE ]
Pot is too big to fold once the river is bet and raised so you've gotta call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Putting in two bets on the river just because of the slim chance that the TAG is going to have a hand like 88 and then bluff raise the river just seems like spewary.



[ QUOTE ]
He probably wouldn't raise to shut out the field on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

In this situation, I think many TAGs holding a suited ace or king would struggle with the decision between calling and raising the flop. Once he checks behind on the turn, it seems obvious to me that he has a higher flush draw.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
You checked the turn, and showed weakness.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've said this in two different responses, and it doesn't make any sense to me. Bob's play is very consistent with his having a draw. Consequently, why would Bob's sensate opponent dismiss this very real possibility?


[ QUOTE ]
I actually think he's got a wide variety of hands he calls with like 99, 88, TT, QJ, QT, QK, A7 is an outside possibility too.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by the time the river comes you really think that this is the opponent's range of hands then you and I have very different perceptions about what it means to be a "solid, aggressive, well-playing" dude.

[me454555]

I said he might have screwed up the hand and played it suboptimally or tried to get too tricky. Bob has played the hand like a draw BUT he can also be bluffing. Bob's opponent must take this into consideration and call times when he has a weak made hand.

[damaniac]

We're not particularly worried about worse hands calling/not calling, we're worried about his having the nut flush (or a better one) and raising us. If he does put Bob on a bluff and has some sort of made hand like 88, I can't imagine he'd raise. That's a horrible way to pick off bluffs. So this is why we think bet/fold is one good line, check/call because we might want to see a showdown, and induce a bluff if villain has a busted straight draw or something.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
We're not particularly worried about worse hands calling/not calling, we're worried about his having the nut flush (or a better one) and raising us. If he does put Bob on a bluff and has some sort of made hand like 88, I can't imagine he'd raise. That's a horrible way to pick off bluffs. So this is why we think bet/fold is one good line, check/call because we might want to see a showdown, and induce a bluff if villain has a busted straight draw or something.

[/ QUOTE ]

In fact, of the four potential options available to us on the river, I think bet/call is worse than bet/fold and check/call, and probably no better than check/fold.

[me454555]

I think you have to take into account the fact that sometimes he will get called by a weak hand that would have checked behind on the river had we not bet. This makes betting IMO much better than checking. If he raises, the question is whether to call or not. We're getting 7.5:1 on a call here so I think you'll be good often enough for a call to correct.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
If he raises, the question is whether to call or not. We're getting 7.5:1 on a call here so I think you'll be good often enough for a call to correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, because I like money.

[chief444]

Bob,

I'm 3-betting this flop. Good things can happen if you do and you're probably about a coin flip or so anyway with the OESFD and even a slight chance your 8/9 outs are good.

The river I'd probably check/call the way you played it out just because I can't think of any hand except a flush draw or straight draw or monster hand that the opponent plays out this way. But I do think a solid/aggressive player would (and should) bet A-high on this turn. I think something like 8 /images/graemlins/heart.gif 9 /images/graemlins/heart.gif is possible. Although I'm really not sure why he would raise it on the flop.

I guess he probably did flip Ax spades since he's got something worth showing down at least to raise the flop in a small pot but the turn check is pretty indicative of a draw. But he really should be betting the turn here with anything he raised with on the flop.

Chief

[Borno]

I'm probably nuts but I raise the flop and bet the turn.

This is HU and your draw comes in more than 50% of the time, I'd play very aggressive here. If you get raised on the turn I'd call and fold the river UI or bet/call improved.

am I too loose/aggressive? I think this is good HU play...

[chief444]

[ QUOTE ]
So yes, there is not a whole lot out there a solid player could have.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'll argue that there is absolutely no hand that his opponent could hold that was played well here, as I basically said in my first response. Anything he holds that is worth a flop raise should be worth a turn bet. Similarly, if he doesn't hold the best hand often enough against Bob's range to bet the turn, then he should just call or fold the flop.

[DMBFan23]

results are whatever, but what was your river play?

[Guruman]

my .02:

I'd three-bet this flop. Here's why:

1)I have a ton of equity here and a three-bet is nothing but good for me finanically.

2)It immediately re-defines and slightly disguises my hand. Bet/re-raise (with the intention of calling) on this flop can suggest a very strong draw (which you have), a set, two pair or an overpair. Bet/call line looks more like a draw (which you have), a weak queen, unpaired overcards, or a pair with a backdoor flush draw.

I want my opponent to re-define his hand right now on this cheap street.

3)It may slow him down with less than monster hands on later streets.

4)A turn check-through doesn't necessarily mean weakness after a flop three-bet. It can also mean an attempted check-raise. However, if he made it this far and bets this blank you can just call and the river decision will be much clearer than it is now.

5)a turn checkthough after a preflop threebet sets you up to lead out on a made hand (which you hit), or to check-raise a missed one as a place where he can legitimately lay down something like middle pair, overcards, Qx, or other weaker hands. He can't lay these hands down if you don't three-bet the flop.

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
Canterbury 8/16
UTG here is a solid, aggressive old dude. He plays well from the few times I have played with him.

UTG limps, two other guys limp, SB calls, I check with 9 /images/graemlins/spade.gif8 /images/graemlins/spade.gif in the BB.

Flop (5 players): Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif7 /images/graemlins/spade.gif6 /images/graemlins/heart.gif

SB checks, I bet, UTG raises, everyone else folds, I call.

Turn (2 players): 4 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif
I check, UTG checks

River (2 players): 4 /images/graemlins/spade.gif

I......

[/ QUOTE ]

Haven't read the other posts, but . . .

Doesn't make sense that he checked the turn with a set (or top pair or 2 pair), not with 2 spades out and a 3 to a straight on the board. So, I am not worried about a boat so much.

His flop raise/turn check could have meant spades, though. So, I am more concerned about flush over flush.

That's my read.

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]

1] He was on a flush draw and just hit, in which case you are ahead a small majority of the time and behind a much larger majority of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/wink.gif /images/graemlins/crazy.gif /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
should have 3-bet the flop, and now given the action will bet and call a raise on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is absurd

[/ QUOTE ]
I hate answers like this. We'll have ~54% equity often, so it can't be absurd.

I'm 3-betting. At worst we're up against Axs or a set. Against Axs we're still holding 12 outs (UTG will have a nice redraw though). A 3-bet will only cost us a fraction of a SB at worst and often be for value. A flop 3-bet demands a follow up on the turn. Against a legitimate hand (any made hand) we need to pay 1BB on the turn anyway. By 3-betting the flop (at worst losing a fraction of a SB) we'll be able to bet the turn and gain folding equity against PP's and smaller pairs.

Worst case scenario is when UTG holds a set and decides to just smoothcall the flop 3-bet and raise the turn. This won't happen often enough to not make 3-betting the flop correct IMO.

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
But he really should be betting the turn here with anything he raised with on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agree.

[ QUOTE ]
Good things can happen if you do and you're probably about a coin flip or so anyway with the OESFD and even a slight chance your 8/9 outs are good.

[/ QUOTE ]
We're not holding a oesfd. Pretty important if we're up against Axs. And the good things that can happen from the 3-bet is folding PP's or smaller pairs by following up on the turn. Just to point out that the good things don't appear from nowhere /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[chief444]

[ QUOTE ]
We're not holding a oesfd. Pretty important if we're up against Axs. And the good things that can happen from the 3-bet is folding PP's or smaller pairs by following up on the turn. Just to point out that the good things don't appear from nowhere

[/ QUOTE ]
By OESFD I just mean he has both an open ender and a flush draw. But it's exactly against Axs where this has the benefit of winning when the flush draw misses. And if not against a better flush draw then it's about break even or even for value. That's why I like the 3-bet. One way or the other it has value.

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
But it's exactly against Axs where this has the benefit of winning when the flush draw misses.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think UTG also will hold hands that will fold the turn for 1BB. But I agree, hero should also be betting the river. (given a flop 3-bet)

[sthief09]

I bet because he's out of position and unlikely to have raised the flop for a free card.

[oreogod]

Well the only thing I can see really is Ax /images/graemlins/spade.gif. Cleaning outs on the flop, trying to push some ppl out.

He now has position on the turn, why not take a free card. On the turn, some ppl might take another stab at the pot with Ax/images/graemlins/spade.gif, maybe he felt OP would not fold.

What other hands could he have, I mean hes a solid player, if its not the high flush draw what else is there? Its a weird line if its not a draw.

[roy_miami]

The general consensus seems to be villain has the nut flush draw or wants a cheap showdown (which I agree with). This really makes the river decision a no brainer, doesn't it?

[PokerBob]

UTG here is a solid, aggressive old dude. He plays well from the few times I have played with him.

UTG limps, two other guys limp, SB calls, I check with 9 /images/graemlins/spade.gif8 /images/graemlins/spade.gif in the BB.

Flop (5 players): Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif7 /images/graemlins/spade.gif6 /images/graemlins/heart.gif

SB checks, I bet, UTG raises, everyone else folds, I call.

Turn (2 players): 4 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif
I check, UTG checks

River (2 players): 4 /images/graemlins/spade.gif

I...... checked, he bet, I called.

He said "Queen". I said, "Spades". He mucked his hand. In retrospect, I should have made him table his hand, as I'd love to know what his kicker was. IMO not betting the turn here was horrible for him. I'm still not sold that 3-betting the flop is correct. If he has a Q, he's not folding on a later street. If he has spades, he's not either unless he misses. I suppose it gives me folding equity on the river if spades miss. I dunno.

I talked awith Schneids about this hand a bit, and he said he'd bet any non-spade on this river given villain's line. I never thought of that, but I really like it.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I think UTG also will hold hands that will fold the turn for 1BB.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dunno. Are you folding a Q or a spade draw here ever? maybe 99-77, but villian is raising those pf IMO.

[sthief09]

you will see this turn check all the time against typical weak-tight middle limit pros

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
you will see this turn check all the time against typical weak-tight middle limit pros

[/ QUOTE ]

I clearly overestimated this guy.

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you will see this turn check all the time against typical weak-tight middle limit pros

[/ QUOTE ]

I clearly overestimated this guy.

[/ QUOTE ]


he probably had Q9s. I don't think his check is all that bad

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you will see this turn check all the time against typical weak-tight middle limit pros

[/ QUOTE ]

I clearly overestimated this guy.

[/ QUOTE ]


he probably had Q9s. I don't think his check is all that bad

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, but if you want a cheap showdown IMO it makes more sense to bet the turn and check the river. You gain more folding equity this way. I suppose you open yourself up to a c/r that way, but if you intend to put in one more bet no matter what, you muck it to the c/r.

If he indeed had Q9s, then I did overestimate him, cuz IMO this is an easy muck pf UTG.

[damaniac]

I think you are right about the free showdown usually being better with a turn bet, but I know a lot of people, including myself, who used to do that very thing (raise flop, chekc turn) when we were in our weak-tight phases, so while it isn't a "good" play, it is a play that many semi-decent players will in fact make. Thank God Ed Miller got that out of my system as a common default play.

[oreogod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you will see this turn check all the time against typical weak-tight middle limit pros

[/ QUOTE ]

I clearly overestimated this guy.

[/ QUOTE ]


he probably had Q9s. I don't think his check is all that bad

[/ QUOTE ]

How so?

Just curious. Personally, I dont like the turn check, but I just want to hear your thoughts on it.

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you will see this turn check all the time against typical weak-tight middle limit pros

[/ QUOTE ]

I clearly overestimated this guy.

[/ QUOTE ]


he probably had Q9s. I don't think his check is all that bad

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, but if you want a cheap showdown IMO it makes more sense to bet the turn and check the river. You gain more folding equity this way. I suppose you open yourself up to a c/r that way, but if you intend to put in one more bet no matter what, you muck it to the c/r.

If he indeed had Q9s, then I did overestimate him, cuz IMO this is an easy muck pf UTG.

[/ QUOTE ]


yeah but you're going to bet into the river with a wide range of hands that beats Q9 on the river. I don't know that he can fold. unless you have a gut shot you're calling his bet anyway, and a turn check can induce a bluff anyway, so instead of collecting a bet from a draw on the turn, he's getting it on the river. I'm not saying I'd check behind in this particular instance, but in situations like this, in a small, headsup pot against a tight thinking player, keeping the pot small and inducing bluffs on later streets, has merit I think. being that you were a blind, you can easily have a weaker Q, so he's missing value by checking