Is this a donk-like calldown?

Villian is unknown. But this looks a lot like the classic take a shot at the PFR because he probably missed. I was thinking about folding the turn and river. I'm convinced that raising anywhere is pointless, well maybe the a flop raise is okay.

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (10 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is MP2 with K/images/graemlins/heart.gif, A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
<font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, UTG+1 calls, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#666666">5 folds</font>, UTG+1 calls.

Flop: (5.50 SB) 2/images/graemlins/club.gif, 3/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 8/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">UTG+1 bets</font>, Hero calls.

Turn: (3.75 BB) 5/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">UTG+1 bets</font>, Hero calls.

River: (5.75 BB) Q/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">UTG+1 bets</font>, Hero calls.

Final Pot: 7.75 BB

[Borodog]

This is an easy flop raise for me. Given what comes on the turn, you can either check behind and call the river (2 BB), or followup on the turn and check the river (2 BB). Your way costs 2.5BB.

Personally, without a read, I like a raise, bet, check line. I know the board is not drawy, but betting always gives your opponent the chance to fold that checking does not. Furthermore, followup betting with AK conditions your opponents to call you down when you have AA, KK, QQ, JJ, etc.

Edit: The board becomes drawy on the turn, actually. Even more important to bet the turn.

[Harv72b]

I agree with raising the flop. I don't agree with betting the turn...he's not laying down anything he called your flop raise with after the 5 hits, and you (probably) picked up 4 more outs to a win. Check with outs, bet without.

If I whiff the river after the above action, I fold to a bet there. The pot will be very small, and until he proves otherwise, I'll assume that UTG+1 is not leading into me with a worse hand...probably a small PP.

I hate calling down, because 90% of the time they have something like 99 or 77. I fold the turn unimproved after I raised the flop and he bets into me again.

I just don't think he's ever folding a better hand. If he's bluffing (and I think he often is) I don't want to stop him. I was thinking about raising the flop, checking the turn (that's not a A,K or Q), then calling or folding the river depending upon the board.

[SackUp]

[ QUOTE ]
Check with outs, bet without.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this b/c you can fold to a turn raise if you don't have outs but lose so much equity on your draw if raised?

My standard line is raise, check, F UI.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with raising the flop. I don't agree with betting the turn...he's not laying down anything he called your flop raise with after the 5 hits, and you (probably) picked up 4 more outs to a win. Check with outs, bet without.

If I whiff the river after the above action, I fold to a bet there. The pot will be very small, and until he proves otherwise, I'll assume that UTG+1 is not leading into me with a worse hand...probably a small PP.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with this line, but I just see so many check-call-check-folds at the lower stakes. There are so many players that will peel on any flop in a raised pot, if nothing more than to see if you follow through on the turn, and bet into you on the river if you don't. Hence I don't mind a raise-check-call strategy either against an unknown.

The real issue is what is a good "default" strategy, for use against an unknown player. Given the fact that this situation will come up rather infrequently against an unknown, I'm willing to pay one more bet to either pick up the pot on the turn or see how he's playing.

Is that a waste of a bet? Maybe.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't think he's ever folding a better hand. If he's bluffing (and I think he often is) I don't want to stop him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. I would very much like undercards to fold once I've missed the flop. They have 6 clean outs to hit. This is another reason I like to bet the turn against an unknown.

[Harv72b]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this b/c you can fold to a turn raise if you don't have outs but lose so much equity on your draw if raised?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Plus it looks retarded to the rest of the table if you raise the flop, bet the turn, call a turn c/r, and then fold the river on a board like this. Basically like tattooing "implied odds" on your forehead.

[Borodog]

To further elaborate, if an unknown player sees me pay him off with UI AK here, he may be less likely to bluff me in future hands. Once I've spent a bet when he's unknown, the next time it happens, when I might have 20 or 30 more hands on him, I can more reliably interpret his river bet as a value bet with a pair than a bluff, and fold my AK.

But maybe I'm rationalizing my calling stationality on this river?

[Harv72b]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with this line, but I just see so many check-call-check-folds at the lower stakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he'd check/called the flop, I'd like a turn continuation bet more for exactly this reason. But the villain led into Hero, which usually means he's going to showdown unless an A shows (and even then, fairly often).

I think this is a pretty good standard line against most opponents in the SS games, so long as you mix things up often enough that the TAGs won't just start 3-betting you with anything, knowing you'll fold the turn UI.

[RatFink]

[ QUOTE ]
... looks retarded to the rest of the table if you raise the flop, bet the turn, call a turn c/r, and then fold the river on a board like this. Basically like tattooing "implied odds" on your forehead.

[/ QUOTE ]


I'm posting this on my mirror to read every day when I shave.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no problem with this line, but I just see so many check-call-check-folds at the lower stakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he'd check/called the flop, I'd like a turn continuation bet more for exactly this reason. But the villain led into Hero, which usually means he's going to showdown unless an A shows (and even then, fairly often).

[/ QUOTE ]

A very good point. I think I'm going to have to change my dafault against an unknown here.

This has been a good discussion.

[goofball]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Check with outs, bet without.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this b/c you can fold to a turn raise if you don't have outs but lose so much equity on your draw if raised?

My standard line is raise, check, F UI.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes to the first thing. Don't make that a standard line, mix it up. If you make that your standard line people will peel on the flop against you with anything and everything.

[goofball]

Against an unknown I'd just raise the flop. If he 3bet I call and fold the turn UI, if he calls and donks the tunr I fold, if he calls and checks the turn I decide based on the turn card. (bet Qs Js, other stuff sometimes, check 8s etc)

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Check with outs, bet without.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this b/c you can fold to a turn raise if you don't have outs but lose so much equity on your draw if raised?

My standard line is raise, check, F UI.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. In situations where you are unlikely to get a worse hand to fold and have a bunch of outs, getting raised really sucks because you are either costing yourself a ton to see out your draw (note that each bet as an incremental cost even though each call will be profitable when the entire pot is considered), or you force yourself to fold in a situation where you may be laying down a ton of equity. (If you fold a 6 out draw getting like 5.5-1 or something, you are making a correct decision but the equity you forgo in that pot is getting damn close to a whole BB in itself).

[SackUp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Check with outs, bet without.


[/ QUOTE ]

Is this b/c you can fold to a turn raise if you don't have outs but lose so much equity on your draw if raised?

My standard line is raise, check, F UI.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes to the first thing. Don't make that a standard line, mix it up. If you make that your standard line people will peel on the flop against you with anything and everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

How often do you really change lines with hands like this in a SS game? 1) I don't know that SS players are that attentive in the first place. 2) Changing my line in this situation will likely be very player depedent. 3) Most SS players peel with anything anyhow and often you want them to b/c you have more than a just a draw.

I'm not saying that I should never change my line, but I'm not sure how crucial it is in this situation and more importantly for this discussion why having a standard line is that bad? Often I feel like I'm getting too tricky by switching some lines so I'm not predictable, but I change tables too much I feel like I should more often focus on the best line for that hand and worry about table image later.

[goofball]

Well, that line kind of sucks anyway. People call the flop with tons and tons of hands, if you automatically check the turn when you miss you're giving way too many free cards. Then if you always fold a showdown quality hand (A high and rarely K high) on the river you're getting bluffed out too much. Low limit players don't usually think "he checked behind so he probably has a shodown commited A high and will call if I bet so I won't bet unless I have a pair). A lot see that you checked and just bet if they miss.

There's a more important reason too.

Say you make that your standard line and that's just what you do in that spot. Well, aside from the fact that it's not that great a line, it's bad for your development as a player. It's too easy to slip into 'i'm doing x because that's waht I do with this hand in this spot.' I do it, everyone does it, it usually isn't a good idea. Thigns vary so much in that spot that makes like 5 different lines viable. You can bet bet bet, bet bet check, bet check call, check and decide, etc etc. It all depends on the texture of the board, game, opponent, your table image, your relative positions etc etc. Practice taking into accoun all that information and deciding what to do in each spot because there are many many different ones that start out appearing to be the same. The worst thing you can do is start falling into the trap of thinking 'I always do x and my hand is y and the board is z'

[SackUp]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, that line kind of sucks anyway. People call the flop with tons and tons of hands, if you automatically check the turn when you miss you're giving way too many free cards. Then if you always fold a showdown quality hand (A high and rarely K high) on the river you're getting bluffed out too much. Low limit players don't usually think "he checked behind so he probably has a shodown commited A high and will call if I bet so I won't bet unless I have a pair). A lot see that you checked and just bet if they miss.

There's a more important reason too.

Say you make that your standard line and that's just what you do in that spot. Well, aside from the fact that it's not that great a line, it's bad for your development as a player. It's too easy to slip into 'i'm doing x because that's waht I do with this hand in this spot.' I do it, everyone does it, it usually isn't a good idea. Thigns vary so much in that spot that makes like 5 different lines viable. You can bet bet bet, bet bet check, bet check call, check and decide, etc etc. It all depends on the texture of the board, game, opponent, your table image, your relative positions etc etc. Practice taking into accoun all that information and deciding what to do in each spot because there are many many different ones that start out appearing to be the same. The worst thing you can do is start falling into the trap of thinking 'I always do x and my hand is y and the board is z'

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, that is very similar advice I posted in another thread to someone asking about aggression. I agree looking at the texture of the board and considering the player are both very important and often looked over concepts. I was definitely being too limited in my post.

Nice post, thanks!