77 UTG+1

[baronzeus]

I raise 77 UTG+1 (8 handed), aggressive MP1 3bets, folded back to me and I call

Flop:

8h 7h 3h

I check, he bets, I raise, he calls

Turn:

2s


What is my plan here for the rest of the hand?

[shant]

I assume he just called? Bet.

[W. Deranged]

Bet the turn.

My thought is that villain has one of the following two types of hands most of the time here:

1. An overpair--In this case, his not reraising the flop may have been with the intent of raising the turn. So you bet, he raises, you three-bet, and you make piles of money.

2. Two big overcards--In this case, he may well check the turn behind if you bet.

So I think you should clearly bet the turn right out. Obviously you'll be juicing the river too...

I really like the flop check-raise as well. A check-call probably costs bets against a big overcard hand which may check behind the turn. Leading out is okay but lead-three-betting may not get as many bets in as check-raising, particularly if your opponent won't auto-raise big overcards on the flop.

[sean c]

Depending on how aggressive he is I would bet/three bet the flop lead a non heart turn or bet/call flop check/raise a non heart turn. If its bet/call check/raise line you have to be pretty darn sure he is betting the turn.

[baronzeus]

Well, let's say I bet and he calls and the river is A/images/graemlins/heart.gif, K/images/graemlins/heart.gif, or Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif. What's my river play?

[W. Deranged]

Check-call.

Clarkmeister would not apply in that case because you are beating basically every non-flush hand and hence there are no hands that will fold to the flush potential that you want to fold.

You may catch a very thin value bet from a hand like AK. I doubt that sort of hand will call without a heart often enough to be worthy of a value bet. Hands like JJ will very likely fold once that hand hits.

[baronzeus]

Interesting. I usually bet in these spots hoping to catch bets from AA-QQ etc, but it seems like it may be wrong.

Anyhow, I went against what you guys said and check-raised the turn and he folded.

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting. I usually bet in these spots hoping to catch bets from AA-QQ etc, but it seems like it may be wrong.

Anyhow, I went against what you guys said and check-raised the turn and he folded.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've started to try and avoid check-raising the turn too much with monsters because I think opponents are becoming increasingly aware of the strength a turn check-raise usually implies. I've started to get a little scared of the play because of how much it kills action.

[shant]

[ QUOTE ]
Clarkmeister would not apply in that case because you are beating basically every non-flush hand and hence there are no hands that will fold to the flush potential that you want to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand how it doesn't apply? I think you'll get a call from TT+ with no heart.

[damaniac]

I think check-raising then checking again looks very weird. Not saying it is therefore wrong, but it might cause him to just check in confusion. I like check-raising the turn when my opponent is leading (obviously) or if I raised PF and led on the flop and was just called, as it looks like I have overcards that missed and am ready to give up.

[banks]

I like the check raise on the flop - but i think you have to bet the turn after this. You dont want to give him a free card here cuz a lot of the hands he has here will contain a heart. I bet every river here and try and bring myself to fold to a raise if the heart falls.

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Clarkmeister would not apply in that case because you are beating basically every non-flush hand and hence there are no hands that will fold to the flush potential that you want to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand how it doesn't apply? I think you'll get a call from TT+ with no heart.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I think of Clarkmeister having two basic parts:

1. We want better hands to fold because of the flush potential.

2. We realize that we still will often have straight value-betting opportunities to capitalize on here which we don't want to pass up on.

My point here is #1 doesn't apply. Hence, a bet on the river here is not strictly a "Clarkmeister" bet... it's purely a value-bet.

Do you think we have a straight value-betting opportunity here? The presence of an overcard and a heart will often kill the action we'd like to get from TT, JJ, QQ.

I guess it is somewhat close because of the action we could get from AK or AA or whatever, but my real thought is that once the heart comes that means that the majority of hands that are calling will be ones beating us (now we're getting action from hands with big hearts instead of the weaker overpairs)...

I can't find a value bet here against those hands, mostly because so many hands I would've expected a call from are now folding due to the heart.

[shant]

Ah I see what you mean now. I also forgot to factor in that you said if the river was a A/images/graemlins/heart.gif or K/images/graemlins/heart.gif. I think your line is better if the heart is also an overcard.

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
Ah I see what you mean now. I also forgot to factor in that you said if the river was a A/images/graemlins/heart.gif or K/images/graemlins/heart.gif. I think your line is better if the heart is also an overcard.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the heart is not an overcard it gets damn close, though I wonder if I still might check-call as now we will get action from hands like TT but won't get it from AK with no heart. It seems like a reasonably even trade-off...

[Piiop]

The point of the Clark is to get the value from those hands that will never bet if you check the river, but will call a bet.

[ QUOTE ]
The presence of an overcard and a heart will often kill the action we'd like to get from TT, JJ, QQ.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's is true that those hands will sometimes fold. But, they'll never bet if you check so you get value from those times they do call.

I think you will frequently get calls from AK/AQ no heart that pairs on the river and occasionally from heartless overpairs.

Also, to BZ, I think your turn check-raise is pretty bad. You don't want to give a free card to a big heart and you want to get max value out of your set. Also, there are the times when he calls the flop check-raise planning to raise the turn with an overpair but freezes up because of your checkraise and you only get 2 bets instead of 3?

I'd bet the turn and bet the river.

Edit: Just reread that were against an aggressive opponent. If this player will bet the river with no heart, then I guess it becomes closer and a check may be correct.

[KDawgCometh]

i think you might want to lead the flop, since he is aggressive then he might raise you on the flop, to which you can then three bet him. I wouldn't have too much of a problem three betting this oppenent on the flop since he could just have overcards with a heart

[chief444]

Is he solid and aggressive or just really loose/aggessive? If he's solid and aggressive I'm bet/3-betting because he'll raise a lot of the time, unless he's just got a high heart. But he'll check a high heart behind here with no pair.

If he's not that solid then I think you can go for another check/raise because loose/aggressive opponents will bet a lot of the time here when checked to again and also call a check/raise a good portion of that time. Plus, trivecta's are fun.