AKs, A on turn makes 3-flush

[Ortho]

Crypto 1/2 full. UTG is medium-loose/passive.

I'm BB with A/images/graemlins/club.gifK/images/graemlins/club.gif

UTG limps. MP2 Limps. CO limps. I raise. Everyone calls.

(8.5 Small bets, 4 players) Q/images/graemlins/club.gifT/images/graemlins/diamond.gif4/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

I check. UTG bets. MP2 folds. CO calls. I call.

(5.75 Big bets, 3 players) A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

I bet. UTG raises. CO folds.

[POKhER]

Pondered on this for a while...

Is he representing it, Or does he hold it.


You should have bet the flop, I think this encouraged him to bet. Due to your play i'm now folding this, I think the flop bet may have made this play differently.

Not sure if he was "pumping the flush draw" or betting on decent cards, or plain bluffing with Ax/images/graemlins/diamond.gif /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

Fold.

[Tropex]

I'd probably slow down, he could have some bizarre holding like AQ (he probably would've raised preflop though), AT or QT as well, maybe even A4 and was trying to get people to fold. Some people love to semi-bluff as a flush draw but he might as well just have a pair of queens and hope to scare you off. Of course it is possible he holds the flush. I think calling him down might be the right thing to do here. Even if you are against two pair, you still have some outs to improve on the river (3 jacks, 2 aces, 2 kings - discounted diamonds because one diamond in his hand could be your ruin). Any reads/statistics on the player ?

[gharp]

I'd definitely call on that turn. When it comes back to you you're getting about 8.75:1 and I'm not ready to give credit for the flush. Two pair seems likely to me (since he bet the flop) and you've got something like 7 outs to beat that even if you discount all the /images/graemlins/diamond.gifs (more than 7 if he has something like QT and slightly less if he has something like AT).

[Redd]

You need to bet the flop. This is one of the better UI flops for your hand; moderately coordinated, and you have plenty of outs and a good backdoor. This will also make the turn decision much easier.

[Ortho]

[ QUOTE ]
You need to bet the flop. This is one of the better UI flops for your hand; moderately coordinated, and you have plenty of outs and a good backdoor. This will also make the turn decision much easier.

[/ QUOTE ]

My thinking was along the lines of:
1. I have 3 opponents
2. Betting is unlikely to win the pot here because the flop is moderately coordinated.
3. My hand is somewhat unlikely to be best.`
4. Betting doesn't seem as if it will improve my chances of winning.
5. I can't buy a free card.
6. I have pot odds to draw if I have to pay one bet, but not two (this is an error, I have at least 8ish outs here, but i was thinking it at the time).

So, those were my reasons, and #6 is wrong. But I don't understand why the hand will be easier to play. If I bet, he either calls or raises. If he calls, I bet the turn, and he raises, I'm in the same spot. If he raises, I call, and then I really don't know what to do on the turn. I don't see how it gets easier.

[Redd]

[ QUOTE ]
2. Betting is unlikely to win the pot here because the flop is moderately coordinated.

[/ QUOTE ]

Moderately coordinated flops are OK for overcards; people will pay you off with draw where you have the best of it.

[ QUOTE ]

4. Betting doesn't seem as if it will improve my chances of winning.

[/ QUOTE ]

If betting cleans up your overcard outs, it may.

[ QUOTE ]

1. I have 3 opponents
3. My hand is somewhat unlikely to be best.`
6. I have pot odds to draw if I have to pay one bet, but not two (this is an error, I have at least 8ish outs here, but i was thinking it at the time).

[/ QUOTE ]
IMO between the (admittedly, slim) possibility that you're best, the chance that you'll lose 2 players on the flop and the 3rd on the turn, and your many outs to improve here, you're dragging the pot often enough for your raise to be for value IMO.

IMO this is one of the times where if you're planning to call a bet (and you obviously are), you have more to gain by keeping your momentum and seeing what develops on the turn.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how it gets easier.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because alot of villains will lead with a whole lot of garbage after the PFR shows weakness; he may just be trying to push you off of a hand that obivously missed the flop, and may expect you're doing the same to him on the turn. By continuation-betting, we can basically remove this variable from the decision.

[Ortho]

Thanks for all that.

[ QUOTE ]
Because alot of villains will lead with a whole lot of garbage after the PFR shows weakness; he may just be trying to push you off of a hand that obivously missed the flop, and may expect you're doing the same to him on the turn. By continuation-betting, we can basically remove this variable from the decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting idea. What you seem to be saying is that if he calls or raises on the flop after I bet, we can be pretty sure he's got something. I think I agree with this, but I find it a bit strange that my sense (and that of a poster earlier in the thread) is that since I didn't bet the flop I should be more likely to fold to the turn raise. Is it possible that the opposite is true, that his range is wider because I didn't bet the flop and so I should be more, rather than less, inclined to call him down? Or have I misunderstood your point?

[Sykes]

You need to bet this flop. You have 2 overcards (which gives you about 6 outs and 4 clean outs) and a gutshot (2 clean outs) so you have about 7.5 outs on average. Also, by betting this flop, you get to see where everyone is if they call/raise/fold. If you don't bet and it gets checked through, the A on the turn is a semi-scary card for you because it can get you into a lot of trouble.

If you say UTG is passive, I would highly doubt that he has a flush draw since he bet on the flop. I would be more likely to give him QT then I would a flush. Maybe he has KdQx and trying to pull a move, but i highly doubt it.

[Fantam]

I think you have the gist of it, in that villain could have a wider range of hands after you didnt bet the flop.

But I think there is something else that you also need to consider before you automatically call his turn raise down.

When you bet the turn, you are representing having the A for top pair (which is exactly what you did have), and his raise is saying that he is not afraid of the A.

That makes it more likely that he either has made the flush or else perhaps has you reverse dominated with something like AT or A4.

[2+2 Junkie]

grunching...
I would bet out the flop, you have two overs, a backdoor flush draw, and 3 solid outs (maybe 4) to a straight. The way you played it, I would call down to the turn raise.

[Redd]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for all that.

[ QUOTE ]
Because alot of villains will lead with a whole lot of garbage after the PFR shows weakness; he may just be trying to push you off of a hand that obviously missed the flop, and may expect you're doing the same to him on the turn. By continuation-betting, we can basically remove this variable from the decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting idea. What you seem to be saying is that if he calls or raises on the flop after I bet, we can be pretty sure he's got something. I think I agree with this, but I find it a bit strange that my sense (and that of a poster earlier in the thread) is that since I didn't bet the flop I should be more likely to fold to the turn raise. Is it possible that the opposite is true, that his range is wider because I didn't bet the flop and so I should be more, rather than less, inclined to call him down? Or have I misunderstood your point?

[/ QUOTE ]


Yeah, I would say that since Villain's range is wider, you're more likely ahead than if you had bet the flop. I also think Villain would be more likely to perceive your turn bet as a 'stab at the pot' after having not bet the flop, but this could be debated either way depending on reads.

But you're right that the decision doesn't change very much. We're really leading the flop because we have the pot/fold equity to do so. The added information doesn't make a huge difference in how the hand plays out, because we end up representing the same hand either way; I think it would make a bigger difference if a low heart was turned. In the original hand, I would call down Villain's raise whether you had led the flop or not.

[eviljeff]

uh, bet the flop dude. and unless you can strongly put him on the flush, call the turn.

[cfjr2]

as much for myself as the OP - please comment /images/graemlins/wink.gif

Flop: I don't mind the check from early position you may get checked around and get a free turn, not sure I love that but..
HOWEVER, once it is bet you should raise (there are 10.5 sb in at that point and UTG will call so you getting 5.5 to 1 also most likely knocks out CO).

Turn: (post flop raise) If UTG has a made hand he will bet turn, otherwise you may get a free turn card by checking as he fears the you raising again. If he bets out you're likely beat and can fold.

If you bet out on the card that came he may or may not raise fearing the re-raise. If he raises you should be able to fold.

Assuming you check through or bet w/o a raise, you should now have a much better idea where he stands.

comments? thanks

[gopnik]

I bet this flop

[Ortho]

Thanks to everyone who responded. I called this down and he showed me K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif8/images/graemlins/diamond.gif. My read was pretty clearly wrong, but I had to make my decision based on it at the time so I thought I had to give it here as well.