Call this turn check/raise [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

View Full Version : Call this turn check/raise

baronzeus

07-13-2005, 03:25 PM

Villain TAGish.

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (9 handed) http://216.119.70.224/converter/hhconverter.pl

Preflop: Hero is MP2 with A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, A/images/graemlins/spade.gif.
UTG calls, UTG+1 raises, 1 fold, Hero 3-bets, 5 folds, UTG calls, UTG+1 caps, Hero calls, UTG calls.

Flop: (13.50 SB) Q/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 8/images/graemlins/club.gif, 4/images/graemlins/heart.gif (3 players)
UTG checks, UTG+1 bets, Hero raises, UTG folds, UTG+1 calls.

Turn: (8.75 BB) Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif (2 players)
UTG+1 checks, Hero bets, UTG+1 raises, Hero calls.

River: (12.75 BB) A/images/graemlins/club.gif (2 players)
UTG+1 bets, Hero raises, UTG+1 3-bets, Hero caps, UTG+1 calls.

Final Pot: 20.75 BB

imported_CaseClosed326

07-13-2005, 03:45 PM

I call it down, I think you are good here enough times for that to work. Nice suckout though.

DemonDeac

07-13-2005, 03:47 PM

id call it down. queen is a nice scarecard that could be used for bluff.

nice catch

Nick C

07-13-2005, 03:55 PM

The turn checkraise does seem kind of suspicious: There's exactly one AQs available. Would our TAGgish opponent cap AQo/KQs preflop?

Maybe so, given the river action. Whatever he's got, he does seem to like it a lot on the river. If it's not AQo/KQ, then what is it? 88? An overplayed A /images/graemlins/heart.gif K /images/graemlins/heart.gif?

I guess in a way the one available combo of QQ makes the most sense. But if that's what it was, then it's just one of those unfortunate cases where the river card is the worst one possible for you.

TStoneMBD

07-13-2005, 03:59 PM

i cant believe youve posted a hand like this without stats or notes.

baronzeus

07-13-2005, 04:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i cant believe youve posted a hand like this without stats or notes.

[/ QUOTE ]

He had only been sitting for 10 or 15 hands, and I had no specific notes on him, except that he was "TAGish"

BWebb

07-13-2005, 04:28 PM

I'd check behind on the turn. This is a WA/WB situation. A TAG has a limited number of capping hands, many of which can find a fold here if they don't include a Q. (AK, JJ, 10-10). You really only miss a bet from KK, because he would probably call you down.

baronzeus

07-13-2005, 04:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Nice suckout though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, if you only knew how lucky I was to hit top full house on the river there.....

TimM

07-13-2005, 04:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The turn checkraise does seem kind of suspicious: There's exactly one AQs available. Would our TAGgish opponent cap AQo/KQs preflop?

Maybe so, given the river action. Whatever he's got, he does seem to like it a lot on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

You shouldn't use the river action to decide what to make of the turn.

I would say KK is a very likely hand at that point, with something like JJ also possible.

Folding is out of the question. I might even 3-bet the turn, or just call and then raise-call the river on a blank (and cap as in the actual hand). I like this better than a turn 3-bet because he is more likely to pay off a river raise with a losing hand, especially if it's not KK.

Yes I will lose more when he has a queen or two, but there are many more likely hands that I beat and extract more money from them this way.

baronzeus

07-13-2005, 04:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The turn checkraise does seem kind of suspicious: There's exactly one AQs available. Would our TAGgish opponent cap AQo/KQs preflop?

Maybe so, given the river action. Whatever he's got, he does seem to like it a lot on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

You shouldn't use the river action to decide what to make of the turn.

I would say KK is a very likely hand at that point, with something like JJ also possible.

Folding is out of the question. I might even 3-bet the turn, or just call and then raise-call the river on a blank (and cap as in the actual hand). I like this better than a turn 3-bet because he is more likely to pay off a river raise with a losing hand, especially if it's not KK.

Yes I will lose more when he has a queen or two, but there are many more likely hands that I beat and extract more money from them this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

This was my thinking...maybe he saw the Q and decided to take a shot at me with JJ to test me, since I only 3bet with a few hands containing a Q.

TimM

07-13-2005, 04:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'd check behind on the turn. This is a WA/WB situation. A TAG has a limited number of capping hands, many of which can find a fold here if they don't include a Q. (AK, JJ, 10-10). You really only miss a bet from KK, because he would probably call you down.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a WA/WB situation, but the WAs are much more likely than the WBs, and a lot of the WBs are calling down anyway, so I'm not missing a turn bet. Also, a lot of players will get aggressive with JJ and TT after the board pairs the only overcard.

BWebb

07-13-2005, 05:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I would say KK is a very likely hand at that point, with something like JJ also possible.

Folding is out of the question. I might even 3-bet the turn, or just call and then raise-call the river on a blank (and cap as in the actual hand). I like this better than a turn 3-bet because he is more likely to pay off a river raise with a losing hand, especially if it's not KK.

Yes I will lose more when he has a queen or two, but there are many more likely hands that I beat and extract more money from them this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is just wreckless chipspewing. Although he is a TAG, this is still 2/4 and it is a read over a limited number of hands.

BWebb

07-13-2005, 05:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd check behind on the turn. This is a WA/WB situation. A TAG has a limited number of capping hands, many of which can find a fold here if they don't include a Q. (AK, JJ, 10-10). You really only miss a bet from KK, because he would probably call you down.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a WA/WB situation, but the WAs are much more likely than the WBs, and a lot of the WBs are calling down anyway, so I'm not missing a turn bet. Also, a lot of players will get aggressive with JJ and TT after the board pairs the only overcard.

[/ QUOTE ]

I also forgot to mention when you pick up a bet from a hand that would have folded to a turn bet (if you check behind). You're going to be getting looked up after checking the turn by JJ-99, along with AK most of the time.

TimM

07-13-2005, 05:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
That is just wreckless chipspewing. Although he is a TAG, this is still 2/4 and it is a read over a limited number of hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's reckless. What are his capping hands that might play the flop and turn this way?

AA - 1 way
KK - 6 ways
QQ - 1 way
JJ - 6 ways x 50% chance of capping = 3 ways
TT - 6 ways x small chance of capping = 1 way
AQs - 1 way x 50% chance of capping = 0.5 ways
AQo - 3 ways x small chance of capping = 0.5 ways

2 ways of being way behind.

6 ways that will frequently go bet/call flop, check/raise the turn.
4 ways that will sometimes go bet/call flop, check/raise the turn.

I am fine with losing 4-5 bets vs. gaining 3-4 bets under those conditions.

If he is not really a TAG it's going to be even better.

BWebb

07-13-2005, 05:34 PM

I'm going to get home and do some calculations myself. I'll come back to this thread later.

Nick C

07-13-2005, 05:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If he is not really a TAG it's going to be even better.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he's not really a TAG, then I think we should be thinking there are more than 2 ways (in terms of weighted hand combos) of being way behind on the turn.

TimM

07-13-2005, 06:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If he is not really a TAG it's going to be even better.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he's not really a TAG, then I think we should be thinking there are more than 2 ways (in terms of weighted hand combos) of being way behind on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he is actually more passive pre-flop, that will remove the AQ hands entirely.

If he is LAG, it's much harder to predict. Yes the two ways will increase for sure, but won't the ways he could be behind increase even more?

Nick C

07-13-2005, 06:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If he is not really a TAG it's going to be even better.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he's not really a TAG, then I think we should be thinking there are more than 2 ways (in terms of weighted hand combos) of being way behind on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he is actually more passive pre-flop, that will remove the AQ hands entirely.

If he is LAG, it's much harder to predict. Yes the two ways will increase for sure, but won't the ways he could be behind increase even more?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it's possible that's the case. I don't know.

Part of the difficulty here is that we're working with a vague read based on 10-15 hands and a note from a previous session that says Villain is TAGgish.

Also, I haven't played 2/4 in a few months, and my 3/6 full experiences may be influencing me. I do think you're more likely to be best following the turn checkraise versus a tightish 2/4 unknown than versus a tightish 3/6 unknown.

Anyway, what I would do is call down after the turn checkraise (well, that would be my plan until I spiked the ace on the river, that is). If I decided to raise somewhere unimproved instead of calling down, I think I would do it on the river. On the river, I do like raise-call better than raise-fold, because from what I remember, 2/4 players who try to push you off of a hand can sometimes be pretty persistent about it (also, they sometimes overplay their pocket pairs).

For better or worse, though, the paired broadway card on the board, combined with the turn checkraise, would bully me into just calling down unimproved.

TimM

07-13-2005, 07:19 PM

This is just one of those rare hands where, when faced with a bet on the river after a turn check-raise, I can stop and ask myself if there is value in putting in one more raise. Obviously the river needs to be a total blank. Otherwise, it's bad if he hit something, bad if he was already ahead, and it's also bad if it lets him get away.

As for the turn discussion (and I know it was not you who said this), I just find it hard imagine that if the hand were posted this way...

[ QUOTE ]
Villain TAGish.

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (9 handed) http://216.119.70.224/converter/hhconverter.pl

Preflop: Hero is MP2 with A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, A/images/graemlins/spade.gif.
UTG calls, UTG+1 raises, 1 fold, Hero 3-bets, 5 folds, UTG calls, UTG+1 caps, Hero calls, UTG calls.

Flop: (13.50 SB) Q/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 8/images/graemlins/club.gif, 4/images/graemlins/heart.gif (3 players)
UTG checks, UTG+1 bets, Hero raises, UTG folds, UTG+1 calls.

Turn: (8.75 BB) Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif (2 players)
UTG+1 checks, Hero ???

[/ QUOTE ]

... that checking behind would be suggested.

baronzeus

07-13-2005, 07:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
This is just one of those rare hands where, when faced with a bet on the river after a turn check-raise, I can stop and ask myself if there is value in putting in one more raise. Obviously the river needs to be a total blank. Otherwise, it's bad if he hit something, bad if he was already ahead, and it's also bad if it lets him get away.

As for the turn discussion (and I know it was not you who said this), I just find it hard imagine that if the hand were posted this way...

[ QUOTE ]
Villain TAGish.

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (9 handed) http://216.119.70.224/converter/hhconverter.pl

Preflop: Hero is MP2 with A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, A/images/graemlins/spade.gif.
UTG calls, UTG+1 raises, 1 fold, Hero 3-bets, 5 folds, UTG calls, UTG+1 caps, Hero calls, UTG calls.

Flop: (13.50 SB) Q/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 8/images/graemlins/club.gif, 4/images/graemlins/heart.gif (3 players)
UTG checks, UTG+1 bets, Hero raises, UTG folds, UTG+1 calls.

Turn: (8.75 BB) Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif (2 players)
UTG+1 checks, Hero ???

[/ QUOTE ]

... that checking behind would be suggested.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're probably right. I should have posted it this way, but I wanted to post the river as well to show how much hatred God + PartyPoker have for me.

Given the hand, folding the turn is impossible IMO, since KK and JJ are such huge possibilities, and capping the river is an inevitability.

BWebb

07-13-2005, 09:59 PM

Alright, after making some assumptions and doing some math, a bet on the turn here has a higher EV than checking behind assuming he raises with the typical TAG hands AA-1010, AK-AQ. It is still close, depending on how he would play hands like AK, JJ and 1010. As for getting into a raising war after being checkraised on the turn, I still believe that is a very bad idea.

baronzeus

07-13-2005, 10:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Alright, after making some assumptions and doing some math, a bet on the turn here has a higher EV than checking behind assuming he raises with the typical TAG hands AA-1010, AK-AQ. It is still close, depending on how he would play hands like AK, JJ and 1010. As for getting into a raising war after being checkraised on the turn, I still believe that is a very bad idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

I rivered the top full house. You're saying I should just call the 3bet?

DMBFan23

07-13-2005, 10:53 PM

I think he means don't 3-bet the turn

ncboiler

07-13-2005, 10:54 PM

Easy call but probably re-raise. I'm putting him on another PP but not neccessarily a Qx.

baronzeus

07-13-2005, 10:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think he means don't 3-bet the turn

[/ QUOTE ]

Just making sure...not capping that river would be moronic.

BWebb

07-14-2005, 12:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Alright, after making some assumptions and doing some math, a bet on the turn here has a higher EV than checking behind assuming he raises with the typical TAG hands AA-1010, AK-AQ. It is still close, depending on how he would play hands like AK, JJ and 1010. As for getting into a raising war after being checkraised on the turn, I still believe that is a very bad idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

I rivered the top full house. You're saying I should just call the 3bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh no. I was responding to the idea of 3-betting or raising the river unimproved.

TimM

07-14-2005, 01:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for getting into a raising war after being checkraised on the turn, I still believe that is a very bad idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

I rivered the top full house. You're saying I should just call the 3bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

We were talking about my idea of putting in just one river raise, and calling a re-raise, if a blank fell. I still like it. It's good if you get paid off at least twice for every time you get re-raised, call, and lose.

And it's better if he sometimes doesn't re-raise hands that beat you. It's also better if he could re-raise some hands that lose to you, or is the type of player you can just fold to when he re-raises, but for this you need a better read.

I still think it's a good idea. I wish PT would let me search for hands by betting pattern so I could find lots of examples. /images/graemlins/frown.gif In real games I get paid off by lots of nonsense on these raises, even some total bluffs, and of course they have KK and smaller pairs a lot, as expected.