Good use of the turn donk?

[Mister Z]

This hand turned out a little strange. I only occassionally raise with KQo but this table was pretty fishy. Anyhow, MP2 is slightly loose/aggressive and the other two players have been playing very fishy and are making the table very good. 3-bet the flop? Turn donk?

PreFlop: Hero is UTG+1 with Qh Kd (10 Players)
1 fold, Hero raises, 1 fold, 1 fold, MP2 calls, MP3 calls, CO calls, 3 folds,

Flop: (9.50 SB) Kc 7s 6d (4 Players)
Hero bets, MP2 raises, MP3 calls, CO calls, Hero calls,

Turn: (8.75 BB) Tc (4 Players)
Hero bets, MP2 calls, MP3 calls, CO calls,

River: (12.75 BB) 3c (4 Players)
Hero checks, MP2 bets, MP3 calls, CO calls, Hero calls,

Final Pot: 16.75 BB

[crunchy1]

I don't understand the river check. I would've liked either a flop 3-bet or a turn check/raise.

What were you trying to accomplish by donking the turn? Why were you scared to value bet the river?

[Mister Z]

I checked the river because it put 3 clubs on the board and the way the fish were calling down made me think it was pretty likely they could be on a club draw. I think this freakin downswing has given me monsters-under-the-bed syndrome. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

My thinking on the turn was that I wanted MP2 to raise again in order to protect my hand against the latter two player's possible 5-6 out hands. Bad idea I guess. Should I have just focused on getting more money in the pot here?

[Redd]

[ QUOTE ]
the way the fish were calling down made me think it was pretty likely they could be on a club draw

[/ QUOTE ]
There's a million losing hands they could have. I like a river value-bet and a flop 3-bet.

[mdob]

[ QUOTE ]
My thinking on the turn was that I wanted MP2 to raise again in order to protect my hand against the latter two player's possible 5-6 out hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

MP2 is more likely to bet when checked to than raise when bet into, thus you are more likely to be able to protect your hand by check-raising than by betting.

[hobbsmann]

When the action is that multiway I just go ahead and 3-bet the flop and then lead the turn. You really need to be beating this river.

[Todd]

Been on the board a very long time, but not much recently.

So I have a basic question:

What is a "Turn Donk?"

Thnaks,

T

[@bsolute_luck]

[ QUOTE ]
beating this river

[/ QUOTE ] /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My thinking on the turn was that I wanted MP2 to raise again in order to protect my hand against the latter two player's possible 5-6 out hands.

[/ QUOTE ]
MP2 is more likely to bet when checked to than raise when bet into, thus you are more likely to be able to protect your hand by check-raising than by betting.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're not protecting your hand by check-raising the turn - no-one is going to fold for one more bet after you check-raise. What you are doing is getting value from calls that are drawing thin.

[mdob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My thinking on the turn was that I wanted MP2 to raise again in order to protect my hand against the latter two player's possible 5-6 out hands.

[/ QUOTE ]
MP2 is more likely to bet when checked to than raise when bet into, thus you are more likely to be able to protect your hand by check-raising than by betting.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're not protecting your hand by check-raising the turn - no-one is going to fold for one more bet after you check-raise. What you are doing is getting value from calls that are drawing thin.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter if they call or fold. Protecting your hand happens when you put someone in a position where they lose (i.e., their choice is to fold or call incorrectly). If they have to put two bets in on the turn when they only have the odds to put in one, they've lost. When you put them in this situation, you've protected your hand. It doesn't matter whether they know they'll have to put in two or not. Even if they have odds to call the first bet, they shouldn't because that means they'll have to put in another one.
We've made our opponents make a mistake. We've protected our hand.

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter if they call or fold. Protecting your hand happens when you put someone in a position where they lose (i.e., their choice is to fold or call incorrectly). If they have to put two bets in on the turn when they only have the odds to put in one, they've lost. When you put them in this situation, you've protected your hand. It doesn't matter whether they know they'll have to put in two or not. Even if they have odds to call the first bet, they shouldn't because that means they'll have to put in another one.
We've made our opponents make a mistake. We've protected our hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with your choice of words and terminology. I don't disagree with your method.

[hobbsmann]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
beating this river

[/ QUOTE ] /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice I've been known to be a spelling n00b.

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't matter if they call or fold. Protecting your hand happens when you put someone in a position where they lose (i.e., their choice is to fold or call incorrectly). If they have to put two bets in on the turn when they only have the odds to put in one, they've lost. When you put them in this situation, you've protected your hand. It doesn't matter whether they know they'll have to put in two or not. Even if they have odds to call the first bet, they shouldn't because that means they'll have to put in another one.
We've made our opponents make a mistake. We've protected our hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree with your choice of words and terminology. I don't disagree with your method.

[/ QUOTE ]
Furthermore, with flush and straight possibilities on the turn and the size of the pot at that point it's quite likely that at least one of the opponents is not making a mistake by calling 1 bet - or even 2. It is, however, a mistake for Hero (who we assume holds the best hand) not to gain value from these drawing hands with correct odds.

[mdob]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with your choice of words and terminology. I don't disagree with your method.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I actually meant to include something similar at the end of my post, but forgot. I think we're choosing the same play for the same reason here.

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree with your choice of words and terminology. I don't disagree with your method.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough. I actually meant to include something similar at the end of my post, but forgot. I think we're choosing the same play for the same reason here.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure. Protecting you hands generally refers to taking advantage of a betting/raising opportunity to force people with draws against you out of the pot (typically in a big pot). Betting/raising for value generally refers to leading out, raising behind or check-raising hands that you know you are ahead of but will call anyways. I think this is a "c/r for value" situation.

[mdob]

[ QUOTE ]
Protecting you hands generally refers to taking advantage of a betting/raising opportunity to force people with draws against you out of the pot (typically in a big pot). Betting/raising for value generally refers to leading out, raising behind or check-raising hands that you know you are ahead of but will call anyways. I think this is a "c/r for value" situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I think this is all a matter of semantics, but...
I define protecting your hand as putting your opponent in a completely bad situation. Make her choices a) fold and lose the equity she has in the pot, or b) make a -EV call. The essence is that your opponent loses money either way.
I define betting for value as increasing your $ equity in the pot. For example, if a bet makes the pot grow by 4 BB and you have 50% equity, your bet is for value: Your equity was $X, now it's $X + 4BB * 50% - 1BB. You get value when you bet and somebody calls when you have enough equity regardless of whether that's a good call or not from their prospective.

I don't see how the path (leading, check-raising, etc.) matters; all that matters is the results.

Not to be pedantic, but in this situation you aren't protecting your hand by check-raising MP2, since the players you're protecting it from will call MP2s bet prior to your raise.

[Fat Nicky]

On a pretty drawless board like this, I like 3-betting the flop.

[mdob]

[ QUOTE ]
Not to be pedantic, but in this situation you aren't protecting your hand by check-raising MP2, since the players you're protecting it from will call MP2s bet prior to your raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say that you are, but I guess it depends on your definition. Just because your opponent doesn't know he'll have to call a second bet doesn't mean that he won't have to. I think protection all comes down to whether or not calling a bet is profitable. When calling the first bet is unprofitable (and it is here since you'll check-raise), you've protected your hand.

[WillyTrailer]

[ QUOTE ]
When the action is that multiway I just go ahead and 3-bet the flop and then lead the turn. You really need to be beating this river.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the flop three bet, but I'm not too excited about betting this river. on the flop there were two straight draws with either 89 or 45 and on the turn there was a flush draw. Every single one of those came in. Can we really put all of our opponnents on a middle pair or a worse king that they put in two bets on the flop with? I'm fine with putting one bet in on this river but I'd like to check and see if any fish wants to make it 2.

-WT

[Mister Z]

Proctecting your hand involves cutting down your opponents odds so that calling becomes an unprofitable situation for them. A checkraise on this turn would have made the pot even larger and given your opponents even better odds to chase X-outters to the river. So checkraising 3 opponents who have already called one bet is not protecting anything, it's just for value.

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
My thinking on the turn was that I wanted MP2 to raise again in order to protect my hand against the latter two player's possible 5-6 out hands. Bad idea I guess. Should I have just focused on getting more money in the pot here?

[/ QUOTE ]
So you think people who will call the flop getting 6.2-1 are going to fold the turn getting 5.8-1? I really think you need to be either 3-betting the flop or check/raising the turn.

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with the flop three bet, but I'm not too excited about betting this river. on the flop there were two straight draws with either 89 or 45 and on the turn there was a flush draw. Every single one of those came in. Can we really put all of our opponnents on a middle pair or a worse king that they put in two bets on the flop with? I'm fine with putting one bet in on this river but I'd like to check and see if any fish wants to make it 2.


[/ QUOTE ]
There wasn't any flush draw on the flop (when everybody had to put in 2). 98 came in on the turn and certainly would have raised then. The river is only helping someone with 54 or someone who caught a BD flush - and since the Kc is on board, there aren't many 2 club hands that are calling two on the flop.

IMO, it's a huge leak not to bet rivers like this. A large portion of the time this'll get checked through and you'll miss out on 2 or 3 BBs. A small portion of the time, you'll get raised and lose 1 BB.

[mdob]

[ QUOTE ]
Proctecting your hand involves cutting down your opponents odds so that calling becomes an unprofitable situation for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Calling would be an unprofitable situation for them. Why does the order of the bets they put in matter?

Let's say that bets are two chips, but to call they had to put in one chip, then immediately put in another chip. If they had odds to call for one chip, but not two, would a bettor have protected his hand? Would calling the first chip have been right? What's the difference?

[Mister Z]

[ QUOTE ]

So you think people who will call the flop getting 6.2-1 are going to fold the turn getting 5.8-1? I really think you need to be either 3-betting the flop or check/raising the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, and I agree, but I don't think these two players were calculating pot odds. I was thinking more that they were sort of peeling the flop with bottom pair or gutshots, and would likely fold facing 2 BB's.

[WillyTrailer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with the flop three bet, but I'm not too excited about betting this river. on the flop there were two straight draws with either 89 or 45 and on the turn there was a flush draw. Every single one of those came in. Can we really put all of our opponnents on a middle pair or a worse king that they put in two bets on the flop with? I'm fine with putting one bet in on this river but I'd like to check and see if any fish wants to make it 2.


[/ QUOTE ]
There wasn't any flush draw on the flop (when everybody had to put in 2). 98 came in on the turn and certainly would have raised then. The river is only helping someone with 54 or someone who caught a BD flush - and since the Kc is on board, there aren't many 2 club hands that are calling two on the flop.

IMO, it's a huge leak not to bet rivers like this. A large portion of the time this'll get checked through and you'll miss out on 2 or 3 BBs. A small portion of the time, you'll get raised and lose 1 BB.

[/ QUOTE ]

you're right, especially considering the preflop action and the reads given.

woops.

-WT

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
Calling would be an unprofitable situation for them. Why does the order of the bets they put in matter?

[/ QUOTE ]
Using the common vernacular of this forum:
Protecting: facing opponents with improper pot odds on their immediate decision
Trapping: enticing opponents to make an overall mistake by calling two single bets, each that are correct at the time of the bet.

Even if you don't agree with these definitions, you'll have to go by them if you want people to understand you here.

And FWIW, there is a pretty big difference between trapping and protection. A good player will fold when he knows you've protected your hand, but you'll often be able to keep that same player in the hand by trapping him, since he can't always anticipate your raise. As a result, trapping generates more EV but with bigger swings.

[Mister Z]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Proctecting your hand involves cutting down your opponents odds so that calling becomes an unprofitable situation for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Calling would be an unprofitable situation for them. Why does the order of the bets they put in matter?

Let's say that bets are two chips, but to call they had to put in one chip, then immediately put in another chip. If they had odds to call for one chip, but not two, would a bettor have protected his hand? Would calling the first chip have been right? What's the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is pot odds. On the turn, had the player to my left raised, the last two players would be getting around 6.5:1 odds to call - which would theoretically protect my hand by forcing them to choose between making an unprofitable call (if they are holding a 4-6 out hand such as a gutshot or bottom pair) and folding.

Had I checkraised, these players would be getting around 11:1 odds to call the first bet, and at least 15:1 odds to call the single bet back to them, which is a profitable call for any 4 out hand, and therefore does not "protect" my hand.

[mdob]

[ QUOTE ]
Using the common vernacular of this forum:
Protecting: facing opponents with improper pot odds on their immediate decision
Trapping: enticing opponents to make an overall mistake by calling two single bets, each that are correct at the time of the bet.

Even if you don't agree with these definitions, you'll have to go by them if you want people to understand you here.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK, that makes sense and I sort of knew that was the issue. (I've been lurking longer than I've been posting.) I guess my problem is that the common definition loses a lot of usefullness. Why do we want a term that ignores half of the round?

It's very similar to asking "Do I have the odds to call?" while purposefully ignoring implied odds. I just don't see the point in doing that.

Meh, it doesn't really matter, I guess. A rose by any other name...

[ QUOTE ]
And FWIW, there is a pretty big difference between trapping and protection. A good player will fold when he knows you've protected your hand, but you'll often be able to keep that same player in the hand by trapping him, since he can't always anticipate your raise. As a result, trapping generates more EV but with bigger swings.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really see much of a difference here if you take my definition of protection. Well, actually, I see trapping as a subset of protecting. Basically, you've given your opponents the option to call unprofitably or fold (i.e., you've protected your hand under my definition), but pushed them toward 'call unprofitably' rather than 'fold.'

[mdob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Proctecting your hand involves cutting down your opponents odds so that calling becomes an unprofitable situation for them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Calling would be an unprofitable situation for them. Why does the order of the bets they put in matter?

Let's say that bets are two chips, but to call they had to put in one chip, then immediately put in another chip. If they had odds to call for one chip, but not two, would a bettor have protected his hand? Would calling the first chip have been right? What's the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is pot odds. On the turn, had the player to my left raised, the last two players would be getting around 6.5:1 odds to call - which would theoretically protect my hand by forcing them to choose between making an unprofitable call (if they are holding a 4-6 out hand such as a gutshot or bottom pair) and folding.

Had I checkraised, these players would be getting around 11:1 odds to call the first bet, and at least 15:1 odds to call the single bet back to them, which is a profitable call for any 4 out hand, and therefore does not "protect" my hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're saying each individual bet doesn't protect your hand. I agree. I'm saying the two bets together can protect your hand.

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
You're saying each individual bet doesn't protect your hand. I agree. I'm saying the two bets together can protect your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
Two bets aren't going to protect your hand when calling the second bet is giving your opponent better odds on his call than he had when he called the first bet.

[mdob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're saying each individual bet doesn't protect your hand. I agree. I'm saying the two bets together can protect your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
Two bets aren't going to protect your hand when calling the second bet is giving your opponent better odds on his call than he had when he called the first bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you're only looking at one bet here-- namely, the second bet. I agree that if he only had to call the second bet, he'd be right to do it. When he calls the first bet, he's made a -EV call. The only way your opponent could make a -EV call is if your hand was protected. This is the essence of hand protection. Your opponents have a choice to a) call incorrectly or b) fold. When those are their choices, you've protected your hand.

What is your definition of hand protection and why is it better than my definition?

[Mister Z]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're saying each individual bet doesn't protect your hand. I agree. I'm saying the two bets together can protect your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
Two bets aren't going to protect your hand when calling the second bet is giving your opponent better odds on his call than he had when he called the first bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, you're only looking at one bet here-- namely, the second bet. I agree that if he only had to call the second bet, he'd be right to do it. When he calls the first bet, he's made a -EV call. The only way your opponent could make a -EV call is if your hand was protected. This is the essence of hand protection. Your opponents have a choice to a) call incorrectly or b) fold. When those are their choices, you've protected your hand.

What is your definition of hand protection and why is it better than my definition?

[/ QUOTE ]

If opponents have a 5 or 6 out hand, then calling the first bet on the turn is +EV for them. If you're checking this turn with the intention of raising a bet from the player to your immediate left, it's for value, not for protection. There just isn't a good way to protect your hand on this turn since the flop raiser is to your immediate left.

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
What is your definition of hand protection and why is it better than my definition?

[/ QUOTE ]
Dude, why are you pursuing this? You may as well say "I've decided to call my TV a soapdish. Why is your name any better than my name?' and then expect people to understand what you're talking about when you say you're spending $500 on a new soapdish.

There is a standard definition of "protection" in this forum and, quite frankly, everyplace else. If you choose to have the word 'protection' mean something different for you than it does for everyone else that's your preroggative I guess, but don't expect to be able to communicate with anyone.

[mtdoak]

Anyone else make it 3 for value on the flop and lead the turn if uncapped? The problem with your donkbet is your shouldn't have slowed down. Value bet the river.

[ QUOTE ]
Proctecting your hand involves cutting down your opponents odds so that calling becomes an unprofitable situation for them. A checkraise on this turn would have made the pot even larger and given your opponents even better odds to chase X-outters to the river. So checkraising 3 opponents who have already called one bet is not protecting anything, it's just for value.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

That is... assuming that I'm understanding both your post and SSHE correctly (I don't have a copy in front of me), the point of a check-raise in regards to protecting your hand is to have your opponents face two bets cold, not a raise from a single bet that they've already called.

[donny5k]

[ QUOTE ]


Again, you're only looking at one bet here-- namely, the second bet. I agree that if he only had to call the second bet, he'd be right to do it. When he calls the first bet, he's made a -EV call. The only way your opponent could make a -EV call is if your hand was protected. This is the essence of hand protection. Your opponents have a choice to a) call incorrectly or b) fold. When those are their choices, you've protected your hand.

What is your definition of hand protection and why is it better than my definition?

[/ QUOTE ]
With your definition your opponents are not making a LONGTERM mistake. They aren't going to get check-raised every time that they call in this situation.

[mdob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is your definition of hand protection and why is it better than my definition?

[/ QUOTE ]
Dude, why are you pursuing this? You may as well say "I've decided to call my TV a soapdish. Why is your name any better than my name?' and then expect people to understand what you're talking about when you say you're spending $500 on a new soapdish.

There is a standard definition of "protection" in this forum and, quite frankly, everyplace else. If you choose to have the word 'protection' mean something different for you than it does for everyone else that's your preroggative I guess, but don't expect to be able to communicate with anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to post something similar to this. It doesn't matter what you call it. It's exactly like what you're saying.

The problem is that people keep saying stuff that doesn't make sense. Something like, "my opponent is making a +EV call at first." That's not true. We're going to check-raise whether he knows it or not and our check-raise makes the first call unprofitable. Everyone, other than you, keeps focusing on things like this and it's a little frustrating.

Anyway, I'm not arguing about the definition of protection anymore. Who cares?

[mdob]

[ QUOTE ]

With your definition your opponents are not making a LONGTERM mistake. They aren't going to get check-raised every time that they call in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes they are going to get check-raised every time. We know it. We're the ones doing the check-raising. It might be the right play for him to call from his perspective (when he doesn't know whether or not we'll check-raise), but we know from our perspective that calling is a long term loser.

[Mister Z]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyone else make it 3 for value on the flop and lead the turn if uncapped? The problem with your donkbet is your shouldn't have slowed down. Value bet the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Mister Z]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What is your definition of hand protection and why is it better than my definition?

[/ QUOTE ]
Dude, why are you pursuing this? You may as well say "I've decided to call my TV a soapdish. Why is your name any better than my name?' and then expect people to understand what you're talking about when you say you're spending $500 on a new soapdish.

There is a standard definition of "protection" in this forum and, quite frankly, everyplace else. If you choose to have the word 'protection' mean something different for you than it does for everyone else that's your preroggative I guess, but don't expect to be able to communicate with anyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to post something similar to this. It doesn't matter what you call it. It's exactly like what you're saying.

The problem is that people keep saying stuff that doesn't make sense. Something like, "my opponent is making a +EV call at first." That's not true. We're going to check-raise whether he knows it or not and our check-raise makes the first call unprofitable. Everyone, other than you, keeps focusing on things like this and it's a little frustrating.

Anyway, I'm not arguing about the definition of protection anymore. Who cares?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are completely incorrect because you are still not taking into account the pot size. If the opponent KNEW that I would checkraise and that each of his 3 opponents would go to the river for 2 big bets each (adding 8 BB's to the pot size) then he is correct in calling both bets. Therefore, by definition, I have NOT protected my hand. A lot of people are making a lotof sense here. Are you sure you're not confusing Sklansky's fundemental theory of poker and hand protection.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My thinking on the turn was that I wanted MP2 to raise again in order to protect my hand against the latter two player's possible 5-6 out hands.

[/ QUOTE ]
MP2 is more likely to bet when checked to than raise when bet into, thus you are more likely to be able to protect your hand by check-raising than by betting.

[/ QUOTE ]
You're not protecting your hand by check-raising the turn - no-one is going to fold for one more bet after you check-raise. What you are doing is getting value from calls that are drawing thin.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter if they call or fold. Protecting your hand happens when you put someone in a position where they lose (i.e., their choice is to fold or call incorrectly). If they have to put two bets in on the turn when they only have the odds to put in one, they've lost. When you put them in this situation, you've protected your hand. It doesn't matter whether they know they'll have to put in two or not. Even if they have odds to call the first bet, they shouldn't because that means they'll have to put in another one.
We've made our opponents make a mistake. We've protected our hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I AGREE!