The AK turn spot

[Steve Giufre]

Party Poker 50/100 Hold'em (10 handed) FTR converter on zerodivide.cx (http://www.zerodivide.cx/converter)

Preflop: Hero is MP3 with K/images/graemlins/heart.gif, A/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
<font color="#CC3333">UTG raises</font>, <font color="#666666">4 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero 3-bets</font>, <font color="#666666">4 folds</font>, UTG calls.

Flop: (7.50 SB) 7/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 4/images/graemlins/club.gif, 2/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
UTG checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, UTG calls.

Turn: (4.75 BB) 4/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
UTG checks, Hero checks.

River: (4.75 BB) 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
UTG checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, UTG calls.

Final Pot: 6.75 BB

OK, I want to give some quick thoughts first cause there is only one thing I find mildy interesting about this hand. Its a typical turn spot where you can either bet the turn, and decide whether or not there is any value to bet the river or you can check the turn, and call a bet or usually bet when checked to.

My default here is to bet the turn, and usually check behind the river, although there are certainly players I would still value bet on the end had I put the turn bet in. But, I was thinking that when the raise comes from very early position, and the player in question doesnt have a range that is real big, it might be better to check behind. The reason being that if you arnt already behind to a a pair, then he probably also had an ace in his hand, giving him only 3 outs. Also, if he isnt a total calling staion, you'll usually get another bet because he will either fire the river or pay off with a worse ace high.

When the open raise comes from later position, or its just a guy who has a very big range, I think checking the turn is a very big mistake, since he can now have a lot of 6 out hands, 109, QJ, etc. Also your hand is just so likely to be best on a ragged flop, doing anything other betting would be bad. Keep in mind that I'm not talking about players who will call all three bets with A10 AJ type hands, its obvious that betting the turn is best agaist those types of opponents. Maybe this position thing is really obvious, I think its one of those things I probably think about subconsciously when Im playing without really realizing it. Just wanted to bring it up because besides the raisers postflop tendancies, its the other thing that helps me decide when I want to bet and when I want to check behind.

[bobbyi]

Good post. I like your analysis.

I like a turn bet, river check.

[AceHigh]

Why bet the river after checking the turn? Aren't you a dog to win on the river if you get called?

[mc1023]

[ QUOTE ]
My default here is to bet the turn, and usually check behind the river, although there are certainly players I would still value bet on the end had I put the turn bet in. But, I was thinking that when the raise comes from very early position, and the player in question doesnt have a range that is real big, it might be better to check behind. The reason being that if you arnt already behind to a a pair, then he probably also had an ace in his hand, giving him only 3 outs. Also, if he isnt a total calling staion, you'll usually get another bet because he will either fire the river or pay off with a worse ace high.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming you are showdown bound, I don't like the check in this kind of spot at all.

Even if you are behind to a medium pair to UTG, they are playing it rather weak and will most likely not put in two bets on the turn and will check to you for a 3rd time on the river and may very well pay off on a river you spike.

Also what your saying about an weaker ace is true that they will pay off the river if an ace hits, but most thinking players in the 50-100 game will most likely check-call an ace on the river since your hand is so obvious by the turn check. At the same time they will bet if they hit their pairs.

If you are showdown bound and UTG is not very tricky or aggressive, this turn is a must bet.

[The Truth]

[ QUOTE ]
Why bet the river after checking the turn? Aren't you a dog to win on the river if you get called?

[/ QUOTE ]

not necessarily. Do you not think that the villian would not value bet most of his one pair hands here.

I really like the OP anylsis of the situation. I think i bet the turn too much in spots like this.

[Steve Giufre]

[ QUOTE ]
Why bet the river after checking the turn? Aren't you a dog to win on the river if you get called?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think not betting the river after checking the turn would be kinda weak. I would miss a lot of value bets if I checked there as a default. Those guys call all sorts of worse ace highs in that spot, and they will almost always lead into on me on the river with a pair after I've checked the turn. I think the expert play with say 66 VS me there is to CR the river, but they rarely do it.

[Glenn]

"When the open raise comes from later position, or its just a guy who has a very big range, I think checking the turn is a very big mistake, since he can now have a lot of 6 out hands, 109, QJ, etc."

If you check the turn and he has a 6 out hand, it is not a mistake if he usually bluffs the river when he misses(which is often the case). It also depends of the frequency of his bluff turn c/r's and your response to them.

[AceHigh]

You don't think the utg raiser puts you on a fairly narrow range of hands at this point and can make a pretty good guess as to whether AJ or worse is good? Obviously it's totally dependent on you and your opponent so I couldn't know.

[Steve Giufre]

[ QUOTE ]
"When the open raise comes from later position, or its just a guy who has a very big range, I think checking the turn is a very big mistake, since he can now have a lot of 6 out hands, 109, QJ, etc."

If you check the turn and he has a 6 out hand, it is not a mistake if he usually bluffs the river when he misses(which is often the case). It also depends of the frequency of his bluff turn c/r's and your response to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I dont really disgree there are a million other variables to consider, and how likely he is to checkraise the has a lot to do with it. In the past I used to tell myself, I'm gonna check behind this turn because the board has some draws to it and this guy is capable of checkraise bluffing me on the turn. Then I thought about it, and decided that if he fairly likely to checkraise me with a worse hand, I may as well put the bet in and let him try it. Anyhow, I do agree that it can be fine to check in spots where he very well may have 6 outs, if he is very likely to fire into you on the river when he misses.

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
You don't think the utg raiser puts you on a fairly narrow range of hands at this point and can make a pretty good guess as to whether AJ or worse is good? Obviously it's totally dependent on you and your opponent so I couldn't know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether or not UTGs AJ will call or not isn't that big of a deal. I mean, if they fold, you aren't out anything.

However, the thing is, not too many people will value bet that AK on the river. As such, many UTGs will call with any ace high, thinking "bah, people don't value bet AK, so he must not be able to beat Ace High, and wants me to fold...so they call with AJ thinking maybe just maybe you have JTs or KQ or some such.

Of course, the problem is more people are checkraising rivers now with 66 than they were 8 months ago. And, in another year, betting AK on the river will be dumb.

Josh

[lil feller]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the expert play with say 66 VS me there is to CR the river, but they rarely do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm struggling to understand how that would be the "expert" play. Unless the villian thinks you are a complete doofus, or he knows that you think that he's a complete doofus, the 2nd bet with a hand like 66 on that river has no positive expectation. No better hand folds and now worse hand calls. Am I missing something?

lf

[daryn]

you seem to have said it all, nice analysis

[daryn]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the expert play with say 66 VS me there is to CR the river, but they rarely do it.


[/ QUOTE ]

you would pay off?

[Steve Giufre]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the expert play with say 66 VS me there is to CR the river, but they rarely do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm struggling to understand how that would be the "expert" play. Unless the villian thinks you are a complete doofus, or he knows that you think that he's a complete doofus, the 2nd bet with a hand like 66 on that river has no positive expectation. No better hand folds and now worse hand calls. Am I missing something?

lf

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that the checkraise on the river gets paid off a lot more than you think. First, he doesnt really risk anything because the 3 bettor who just checked behind the turn with position pretty much never has a pair there. Of course he might miss a bet when its gets checked behind, but a lot of aggro players wont check that river. (I pretty much never would agaist that unknown) Also, I think the three bettor will pay off that checkraise from time to time only because he is trying to understand how a guy can check call the flop, check the turn and river, and now all of a sudden he can raise. It gets paid off because the 3 bettor knows the other guy doesnt think he has a pair, so it might give him a reason to do it with something like KQ or whatever.

I think it is particularly true in higher stakes online games where basically nobody lays down anything on the river because there are so many moves being made. Im not sure it would have +EV in a 10 handed 15-30 game. Notice that I didnt always say I thought it was the expert play, just that it was VS me.

[Steve Giufre]

I won.

[veganmav]

What did he have?

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the expert play with say 66 VS me there is to CR the river, but they rarely do it.


[/ QUOTE ]

you would pay off?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't wanna speak for steve, but I think he will, then kick himself for it.

I think that's the default play there, anyways.

Actually, he may not kick himself there for it. See, for the same reason 66 should checkraise the river, it can be argued that the smallest non-set pocket pair should checkraise the river.

Then, it can be argued that the next smallest hand is AK, so that too should checkraise. And so he should call.

I've now realized that I'm talking mostly to myself. As I told Steve over IM, this entire hand is all a "level of thinking" problem, and as such is almost 100% situational. I love live poker.

Josh blah blah W.

[Steve Giufre]

[ QUOTE ]
What did he have?

[/ QUOTE ]

A10

[Steve Giufre]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think the expert play with say 66 VS me there is to CR the river, but they rarely do it.


[/ QUOTE ]

you would pay off?

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean its all player depandant obv, but in that spot I would have paid off, and I usually would in similar spots without player information. The thing is that once I check the turn he pretty much knows I dont have a pair. So at that point if I decide to put the bet on the river, and he doesnt feel like giving me the pot, but doesnt have a hand to showdown with, he might be tempted to checkraise bluff. its just such a screw play I would probably pay it off, at least some of the time. Of course there are players that I would fold to really fast too, so its tough to say.

I dont think checkraising the river with a small pair in that spot would be right as a default, but agaist somebody who has tight 3 betting standards after a player in EP raises, and is pretty aggro on the river, I really like it. I think I fit both criteria so I would like it VS me. It would also depend a lot on what he thinks that I think of him. If he knows I think he is a tight ass then its defintely not worth it since Im never calling the river bet. But with a loose aggro image I love it, because Im calling everytime.

I could have just quoted Josh's post, but Im bored and felt like writing.

[andyfox]

"more people are checkraising rivers now with 66 than they were 8 months ago. And, in another year, betting AK on the river will be dumb."

Maybe, then, in another year, it will make more sense than it does now to check A-A, etc., behind on the turn, in order to win 3 bets on the river?

[Josh W]

[ QUOTE ]
"more people are checkraising rivers now with 66 than they were 8 months ago. And, in another year, betting AK on the river will be dumb."

Maybe, then, in another year, it will make more sense than it does now to check A-A, etc., behind on the turn, in order to win 3 bets on the river?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely, I think.

My post wasn't meant as a correction to anything anybody said. It was just ironic, because earlier yesterday I was having a conversation with a friend about the changing nature of texas hold'em, and he completely did not understand.

I think the easiest way to illustrate the change is the 'free card raise'. It got so common about 18 months ago, that people started threebetting all hands they wanted to one-bet. Some people would then go for the free-card cap (which is the oxyest of morons), and that may have worked with mixed results. Shortly thereafter, the one-bettor/three-bettor would then lead in on the turn after being capped. And before too long, the free card raiser wisened up or went broke, cuz putting in 47.5 BB and getting even money on it as a 2:1 (or worse) dog didn't seem to be paying the dividends that putting in 1BB in the same scenario did.

Yeah, I know it was a run on sentence. I'll try to change that, much like poker changes.

Josh

[andyfox]

Run-on or not, you make a good point. The game is changing, I think, at a more rapid pace than ever before. I suppose it's the influx of young players drawn to poker now from seeing it on TV and the relative ease of learning the game from the comfort of their desk at home. It's not just the so-called free-card raise and cap. It's the turn raise when picking up a flush draw; it's betting out into a limper when the flop is K-3-2; and other things.

Another thing I notice is the influence of no-limit poker on the limit games. While the trend is towards more aggression, as in your oxymoronic "free" card 4-bet, there is also a countertrend of limping and calling from players who usually play no-limit but are either "slumming" in a limit game or waiting for a no-limit seat. Someone could probably write a good article for the magazine on how limit players play no-limit and no-limit players play limit that distinguishes them from limit players playing limit and no-limit players playing no-limmit. Hopefully they'll have a better lead sentence than that one.

[Ian J]

Great post Steve. The fact that he almost has to have either a pair or a hand w/ 3 outs is what makes it work. Giving a free card is hardly at all bad while getting one is great vs. the pairs. The board in this hand here is the ideal one to check behind on IMO. I only have one question. If the board is T943 rainbow on the turn are you then betting or checking behind?

[Steve Giufre]

[ QUOTE ]
Great post Steve. The fact that he almost has to have either a pair or a hand w/ 3 outs is what makes it work. Giving a free card is hardly at all bad while getting one is great vs. the pairs. The board in this hand here is the ideal one to check behind on IMO. I only have one question. If the board is T943 rainbow on the turn are you then betting or checking behind?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I like a bet there. Especially if his opening range is a little wider than just AQ, AK 99-AA or whatever. That board has some draws to it and I think I bet the turn and check behind the river. Even though it doesnt happen very often, there is also the possibility he folds something like 66 to a turn bet with that board as well. If checked raised I would punch the monitor and decide whether or not I wanted to pay off.

[Ian J]

I was thinking exactly those thoughts and was hoping you'd say the same. Mainly to charge KQ and KJs specifically and the slight possibility of folding 66-77, although that is admittedly pretty slight in these games.

[Steve Giufre]

[ QUOTE ]
I was thinking exactly those thoughts and was hoping you'd say the same. Mainly to charge KQ and KJs specifically and the slight possibility of folding 66-77, although that is admittedly pretty slight in these games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah we are definitely on the same page.