JJ EP from session review

Interesting hand from session review

No reads, figured i was WA/WB on the turn. Should i be bet/folding this river?

Party Poker 1/2 Hold'em (8 handed) FTR converter on zerodivide.cx (http://www.zerodivide.cx/converter)

Preflop: Hero is UTG with J/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, J/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
<font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#666666">4 folds</font>, Button calls, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>.

Flop: (5.50 SB) 2/images/graemlins/club.gif, A/images/graemlins/club.gif, 8/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, Button calls.

Turn: (3.75 BB) A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">Button bets</font>, Hero calls.

River: (5.75 BB) 5/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">Button bets</font>, Hero calls.

Final Pot: 7.75 BB

*grunch*

my curiosity leads me to play it the same. bet/fold would be the right track against a passive player though. Against an aggressive player you could still be ahead if he is prone to bluff. Against an unknown I would check/call and make a note if he bluffed with a busted flush-draw or K high or something.

[Weatherhead03]

[ QUOTE ]
bet/fold would be the right track against a passive player though. Against an aggressive player you could still be ahead if he is prone to bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm thinking the same.

[p@t@dds]

I think you should bet out on the turn here. If "button" has an ace, he will most likely raise and you can dump your hand or call and then check/fold on the river if you don't improve. No need to give him a chance to catch a free card on the river if he doesn't have an Ace. Granted a 5 came on the river, but during the hand you have no idea what cards he is holding. If he has any King or Queen he could outdraw you by spiking one, he could be drawing to a flush or a gut-shot wheel, or worst of all he could have pocket 5's. A bet here, might get him to fold before that 5 pops up on the river. I think betting out on the turn will give you more info about his hand and if you plan to fold to a raise it will cost you less than check/calling to the river. That's just my opinion. Hope it helps.

[jaxUp]

you are not WA/WB. If villain is behind, he could have many outs. He could have a FD, OCs, gutshot, or any combination of those. When you are playing as if WA/WB, you want there to be very few (like &lt; 3) outs for villain

[bottomset]

[ QUOTE ]
you are not WA/WB. If villain is behind, he could have many outs. He could have a FD, OCs, gutshot, or any combination of those. When you are playing as if WA/WB, you want there to be very few (like &lt; 3) outs for villain

[/ QUOTE ]

yep WA/WB basically only applies to HU where you or your opponent have 0-3outs when behind, and its roughly equally likely(if you are WB a large % you fold) if you are WA a large % you can consider lines that try and get a lot of bets in

[adsman]

The Ace on the turn makes it more likely villian doesn't have one. Checkraising the turn costs the same as going to showdown. If he doesn't have the Ace it will be very hard for him to call. If he has a lot of outs to beat you on the river this would be a coup. If you are ahead and he calls you down then you win more. If he 3 bets the turn then you can easily fold. By just check-calling it down you're winning less when you're ahead and giving him the opportunity to hit a King or a Queen and draw out on you.

[SoftcoreRevolt]

If you are going to bet the flop, you have far more reason to bet the turn.

[ QUOTE ]
you are not WA/WB. If villain is behind, he could have many outs. He could have a FD, OCs, gutshot, or any combination of those. When you are playing as if WA/WB, you want there to be very few (like &lt; 3) outs for villain

[/ QUOTE ]

ah yep this was what i thought the situation was.

i figured i was up against an 8 or a lower PP with 2 outs, or against an ace.

i didnt consider other possibilities

[ QUOTE ]
Checkraising the turn costs the same as going to showdown.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I don't get that. We are OOP. So if we check/raise him on the turn, we need to be sure he will check behind on the river to pay the same # of BBs as check/calling him down. Or do you compare that to check/calling the turn and bet/calling the river? I'm not sure what lines you are comparing.

[adsman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Checkraising the turn costs the same as going to showdown.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I don't get that. We are OOP. So if we check/raise him on the turn, we need to be sure he will check behind on the river to pay the same # of BBs as check/calling him down. Or do you compare that to check/calling the turn and bet/calling the river? I'm not sure what lines you are comparing.

[/ QUOTE ]

The way OP played it, it costs 2BB to go to showdown. Check-raising costs the same as if he has the Ace he will almost always pop you again on the turn and you can fold, which costs 2BB. That's when you're behind.

If he just calls we are betting the river. This way we make more money when we're in front. If he just called and he had the Ace, no problem. You lost an extra BB but this is a player you know you can push around.

[ QUOTE ]
If he just called and he had the Ace, no problem. You lost an extra BB but this is a player you know you can push around.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, ok. Being willing to lose an extra BB makes the difference.
Actually, just calling with an A here would then be the correct play for villain if you check-raise him, since he will win one bet more. And he let you push him around for a good purpose then /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[adsman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If he just called and he had the Ace, no problem. You lost an extra BB but this is a player you know you can push around.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, ok. Being willing to lose an extra BB makes the difference.
Actually, just calling with an A here would then be the correct play for villain if you check-raise him, since he will win one bet more. And he let you push him around for a good purpose then /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

That kind of opponent is very dangerous. That's third level thinking. Thankfully very rare at these levels.

I had a brain hernia thinking about this.

I think against an unknown your line is not great, but fine. Exposes you to the least losses but the least gains and gets you to showdown every time.

At first I didn't like giving a free card but...
I don't see many hands NOT betting this turn if checked to.

If, on the turn, you were behind, you saved money.

If ahead, villian bets your hand for you.

If he checks through, the worst hand for you he could hold is the unlikely KQ. Bad news if he did stick around on the flop as he has 6 outs and the reason it's worst is he likely would have folded the turn to a bet.

But other than the flush draw, I think his most likely holdings are an 8, PP or an A.

If he has the flush draw AND checks the turn, he would have come anyway if you bet and you would have only ever made .8BB from him, as he folds the river UI anyway.

The good news is, if he bluffs with any of the hands that you beat, he is almost compelled to bluff the river aswell. In most cases you will get more or the same amount of bets when ahead and lose less when behind.


But I think Adsman's line has a lot of merit.
Because so many hands will bet this turn, a c/r may be the way to go. I'd feel very confident folding to a 3bet. But if he doesn't 3bet, your plan works perfectly and from a metagame standpoint may be worth more dollars against this player in the longrun than this play in it's own right.

Line 1. b/c, c/c (no free cards) wins 0-3, loses 3
Line 2. c/c, c/c (The showdown) wins 0-2, loses 2
Line 3. c/r/f, b (The Adsman) wins 0-3, loses 2

Fairly simplified, but Adsman's line I think is best.

I think Line 1 works against a hyperLAG or LPP/calling station.
I think Line 2 may have a place against an overly bluffy or tricky opponent.
I think Line 3 works against most players and best against an unknown.

I think the best solution is to flop quads. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[brazilio]

bet/fold turn

[WriterBoy]

Ok, so he was the only caller...and he cold called on the button. Which means he had to have something other than a draw hand. So what....small to med pp?
It is possible that he had an Ax also.
My guess would be K8s, saw the 8 and decided to ride to the river hoping to fill up. He obviously did not think you had an ace.
So, in my opinion checking the turn is a big mistake. Since you are out of position, you're in trouble either way. If you bet he could raise and represent the ace, or if you check he could bet out knowing now that you don't have an ace either. Personally, I say you bet the turn and fold if raised.

[ QUOTE ]

Line 3. c/r/f, b (The Adsman) wins 0-3, loses 2


[/ QUOTE ]
That assumes that villain will either fold the river or call with a worse hand. It ignores the fact that villain is either quite smart or very weak and calls you down with his A or raises you on the river. Then you lose 3. And I think it's not a too far-fetched result.

hey guys, thanks for all the analysis.

i think now ive moved up a level i definitely need to find more bet/fold lines that as far as i can see were almost useless at .5/1 where often the raise tells you nothing (comparitively to 1/2 at least).

anyway, ill come back tomorrow and post the results as well as my own full analysis (although i think i may change my position to agree with adsman, his makes a lot more sense)

First, note that this is not a big pot. Your hand was compromised by the A on the flop, but you nonetheless played aggressively. OK, you played aggressively, but then you failed to lead out on the turn.

I don't understand why you failed to lead out on the turn. Are you less beaten by one A than two? You appear committed to the pot anyway; why not behave consistently? If he has an A--a big if, imho--he will raise, and you can bow out gracefully, losing little. IT'S A SMALL POT. If he does not raise, you then may lead out or check the river as you wish.

A lead on the river might induce a fold, and it is consistent. Make that, consistently aggressive. It serves warning to your opponent and to the other players at the table you will defend your holdings, and press an advantage. This is +ev in every way, an enhanced table image is always +ev. The leadout on the river may even induce a bluff raise, or a legitimate raise. So what? You suck it up and pay the buck. In fact, if anyone was behaving weak tight, it was hero here, and other players must surely have noted it. I wonder how your session ended?

Cost, one (that's one) extra bet, at most. Impaired standing at the table? Maybe many bets.

[adsman]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't understand why you failed to lead out on the turn. Are you less beaten by one A than two?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because you may still have the winning hand, it doesn't necesarily mean that leading out is best.

[ QUOTE ]
You appear committed to the pot anyway; why not behave consistently?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't you mean, predictably?

[brazilio]

Just to make it clear, checkraising the turn is utterly retarded. Weak aces won't 3-bet you, pocket pairs might or might not bet out. An 8 likely won't, and you're providing a free look at the river for a flush draw. And if you're going to make an argument about predictable play, why don't you start getting out of the kiddie pool before you start thinking about retarded [censored] like this.

[adsman]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to make it clear, checkraising the turn is utterly retarded. Weak aces won't 3-bet you, pocket pairs might or might not bet out. An 8 likely won't, and you're providing a free look at the river for a flush draw. And if you're going to make an argument about predictable play, why don't you start getting out of the kiddie pool before you start thinking about retarded [censored] like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Repeat after me: Thursday is the BLUE pill.

[DCWildcat]

I thought bet/folding the turn was standard here...

since you based your arguments on table image only, I will only talk about that.
1) I think you overestimate table image at 1/2. The people who are good enough to notice and adjust are multitabling most of the time and therefore don't really see what's happening. Especially when you check/call. They would have to watch all the way to SD and then realize that you didn't bet out the turn with a high pp after playing aggressively on the flop. I think that is a little too much.
All the others don't notice such things anyway. Check/call is their standard play for almost anything.

2) Betting out on the turn and then folding to a raise looks a lot weaker than check/calling. Everybody notices that. Most people still won't adjust their play to that in the micro limits. I always notice when someone folds to a raise even when I play multiple tables. So I don't think you do yourself a favor here.

Long story short: table-image-wise the move didn't matter at all, imo.

Bet/fold certainly is the right thing to do against an opponent who wouldn't bet or raise without a made hand. You really don't want to give a free card then.

But what if you are raised by an aggressive player that is fully capable of semi-bluffing and representing trips here (having an 8 or even nothing at all)? I think you are in a pretty tough spot then, esp. if you could be very confident that the aggressive player would use this fine opportunity to (semi-)bluff you. Therefore I think that checking has some value here (no matter if you agree with adsman and raise or you don't and call). Labeling it "retarded" without having reads of the opponent or even demanding some is certainly ... well ... slightly below optimal.

[brazilio]

You lose value against an 8 that likely won't bet, you love value against any other pocket pair, and you certainly lose value against a flush draw. That by far outweighs whatever problem you have with folding the turn. This is a bad flop for us anyway, and putting it in terms of "aggressive" opponents is misleading because no micro limit game is aggressive enough to make this a hard fold.

[ QUOTE ]
First, note that this is not a big pot. Your hand was compromised by the A on the flop, but you nonetheless played aggressively. OK, you played aggressively, but then you failed to lead out on the turn.

I don't understand why you failed to lead out on the turn. Are you less beaten by one A than two? You appear committed to the pot anyway; why not behave consistently? If he has an A--a big if, imho--he will raise, and you can bow out gracefully, losing little. IT'S A SMALL POT. If he does not raise, you then may lead out or check the river as you wish.

A lead on the river might induce a fold, and it is consistent. Make that, consistently aggressive. It serves warning to your opponent and to the other players at the table you will defend your holdings, and press an advantage. This is +ev in every way, an enhanced table image is always +ev. The leadout on the river may even induce a bluff raise, or a legitimate raise. So what? You suck it up and pay the buck. In fact, if anyone was behaving weak tight, it was hero here, and other players must surely have noted it. I wonder how your session ended?

Cost, one (that's one) extra bet, at most. Impaired standing at the table? Maybe many bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

hehe i liked this... a few points tho.

first up, weak/tight players dont call down, they fold. there is a difference between passive play and weak play. and btw this session ended up around 50BB after about 90 hands (was short specifically for the session review)

im not checking because i think im beat, im checking to induce bets from him. why would you ever want vil to fold a worse hand?

my problem with bet/folding the turn is that a) im just not totally confident making bet/fold lines yet, b) it opens me up to the obvious bluffraise (or even value raise with a hand like 99 that now doesnt believe and is raise/folding) that i think would be a very small mistake to call down.

thats why i dont like that play.

i think here either he has an ace (WA) or a PP (WB), people (including me) that suggested he has an 8x are seriously mistaken in hindsight, he CC on the button. what hands with an 8 can coldcall on the button? the chances of him having an 8 are almost negligent. to be honest in game i didnt notice the flush draw, and giving a free card is bad, but i dont see a way to avoid it.

if we are WA/WB then we want to get to showdown. this is the cheapest way to get there. when he is ahead he will bet both and we only lose 2BB (minimise loss when ahead?). when he is behind he will bet most likely twice for 2BB, rather than folding the turn or river if we were to bet ourselves (maximise wins when ahead). and of course if he checks through the turn we are bet/folding a club river or bet/calling a non-club river

i do see the merits in bet/folding the turn against an unknown here, i think the preferred play is entirely due to how much you see KcQc, KcJc, QcJc and KcTc as being a part of his range (note: its only 4 combos).

results: he was WB. he had less than 3 outs. he had 55.