Turn Raise with Probable 2nd Best Hand...

Here's a hand I played towards the end of my last session that I played unconventionally, and wanted to run my thinking past you guys to see whether my reasoning holds water or not.


This takes place in your run of the mill $3/$6 game. The game is generally loose and passive.


PREFLOP


I'm in late middle position, holding black aces. There is an early position limper and a middle position limper. I raise, the button cold-calls, both blinds call, and the limpers call.


6 players, 12 sb in the pot.


FLOP: Jh 7d 4c


Checked to me, I bet, middle limper and BB fold, rest call.


4 players, 16 sb in the pot.


TURN: 6s


SB checks, but early limper bets. He has shown some minimal level of hand selection; in addition, he is primarily an Omaha player, so he tends to overplay his draws. I'm unsure of what this bet means here. I cannot see him playing 85 early for the straight. The only credible two pair he might have hit would be 76. While he might play a set like this, I think he would have gone for the check-raise.


I'm unsure where I'm at. I think a "conventional" play here might be to simply call down to the end, and see what he has. However, with two players yet to act behind me, I don't like that prospect. With my call, they are getting proper implied odds to shoot for gutshot draws. I'd hate to be ahead now, only to let them suck out on the river.


I decide to raise instead. Even if I do have the second best hand, this strikes me as better, as I should blow the button and the BB out of the pot. (If one of them 3-bets behind me, I should have an easy fold.) My intention is then to check behind on the end unless I improve. The original bettor may have difficulty 3-betting without a very strong hand, as I would play JJ equivalently here.


Question 1: What do you think of this strategy? Does this strike you as a reasonable way to play in this situation, or does this just invite disaster? Or is this merely a higher variance play putting up to four bets at risk instead of two?


Question 2: Assume that you blow the two players yet to act out of the pot, but the bettor now 3-bets. At this point you will be getting 13 to 1 on a call which closes the turn action. Do you a) Fold, as you are likely beat or drawing very slim. b) Call, but fold the river if you don't improve. c) Call, and call on the end as a bluff catcher/possibly with the best hand.


All comments welcome. Results to follow.


Dave

The play worked as intended, folding the button and BB. Unfortunately, the bettor now 3-bet, and I folded, fearing I was drawing very slim or dead.


To rub it in, the 3-bettor turned over AdJd, and said "I knew I was best all the way..."


This is, of course, the risk of playing unconventionally ... trying something "sophisticated" can sometimes just backfire and kick you in the ass.


I am curious to see how you guys will respond, however...


Dave

First..I dont think just calling him down is the "conventional" play. In this case I dont think there's one conventional play at all, but since you were talking about conventional play, raising popped earlier in mind than calling him down.


I think SB play makes sense if he holds AQ or AK (if he's not too loose preflop). He might have something like QJs or JTs but I think thats unlikely. So I dont think it hurts to give SB a single BB to face.

Button seems to be drawing and not having something to be protected (he would have raised your bet on the flop), so he could very well have some kind of gutshot you want out (9T 8T 89 etc) or a low or middle pair.


Now early limper. A straight seems very unlikely, and bluffing with a board like this and with this many players with a straight draw (and opponents getting those odds) seems also highly unlikely. So he has probably something here. 76 seems possible if he could limp with that upfront. Other possibilities are 66 77. Could he play a jack this way, hoping you bet something like AK, AQ on the flop, and therefore he bet the turn with a seemingly blank?


I think there's a good chance that you're beat here (given this non treatening board), but I also think you cant lay down here. I think the "conventional" play is to raise here, fold to a 3-bet (would he 3-bet 76?) and check river.


Going to look at results now.


Regards

I dont think your play backfired here. I just think early limper is (way) overaggressive and you should take that into account next time.


Regards

The raise on the turn didn't seem unconventional at all. It seemed to be the natural aggressive play.


I think you made the weak/tight assumption of putting a raiser on some of the best possible hands, specifically a straight even though it seemed unlikely he would play that starting hand. Even if he was ahead with two pair, you can easily win on the river if the board pairs.


With a reasonable amount of money in the pot, you can't possibly fold to just one more bet on the turn.

Haven't read the results yet. Here goes.........


Question 1: I would raise here almost every time. You most likely still have the best hand. If you don't, you improve your chances of winning the pot dramatically. Pretend this guy has 6-7s, your raise probabaly gets J-10 behind you to drop, making a Jack on the river a winning card for you instead of for him. You protect yourself when in the lead, and improve your chances of winning the pot when behind. I consider value betting the river if I am just called, btw.


Question 2: If the player 3 bets, it is a tough call. People in typical passive 3-6 games do not 3 bet on the turn without a 5 card hand in my experience. Heads up, I consider calling but if anyone is left to act behind me, I probabaly fold. This board is simply not scary enough to lay down A-A. However, if I call on the turn, I am calling on the river, and I raise the river if the board pairs or I spike an A.


Off to see the results. I am expecting a raise on the turn, and a call, with a winning showdown for the AA.


Clark

To bet into you on the turn, after you had raised the flop shows some strength anyway. So, options are fold, call or raise. Fold? I don't think so, with this rag flop. Call or Raise? Pot is big enough. Raise. See what happens. IF it gets heads up with you and him, just call the river. There will be enough money in the pot to say "show me".

I'm certainly gratified that the forum opinion to date has been supportive of my choice of play. In my post-session analysis, it appeared to me that my turn raise was not where the error in play occured, but rather in not going to the end once I got heads up with the bettor. However, worrying that my opinion might be results biased, so I thought I'd throw the question to the forum and see how you guys responded. (Of course, you guys all read the results before posting...right? ;-) )


I will admit I am a little surprised at the unanimity of the responses in support of the turn raise. Immediately after the session, I presented this hand summary to two other local players/posters to this forum whose opinions I respect. Both said they would choose to just call down to the end, although one did concede that if he had raised, he would have then felt committed to going to the end. Hence, my comment about a "conventional" play. Evidently, the "conventional" play is not so cut and dried as my friends might have me believe.

Dont know if you played quite some time with this opponent, but key point seemed that he was overaggressive. Against these kind of players calling would be the better play IMO. Maybe your friends knew more about this player than you at that moment knew.

Against the typical player I play against I could surely lay down to a turn 3-bet, and there would be a very good chance to get checked to on the river.


Regards

I'm going to go against the stream here a bit.


If your read is correct and he has two-pair or better you're already behind and drawing at this point. You do not need to raise to drive out gutshots and other weak draws since the cards that will make their hands will not make your. The hands you would like to drive out is the ones with one-pair who will snag trips if the board pairs, but they might fold to one bet aswell. The point is that you think you are drawing and then you want as good potodds as possible. (At least that is how I interpret your read.)


If you on the other hand thought that there was a good chance that you were the best a raise is certainly in order.


Sincerly, Andreas

You said the person who bet into you would have a set of 76 2 pair. What are the likely hood of each? You said he probably would have went for the check raise with a set... he has 76 2 pair. If this is the case you should raise and try to drive out the other players. You need to do this to give you more outs. You need the board to pair (not 7 or 6), or you need an A.


If you don't raise anyone will stay in with a bad J, and now a J is no longer an out...


If you are 3 bet and everyone else is dropping, you should stay and try to spike 2 pair or a set. If there are stragglers you should fold.


Derrick

David:


I personally prefer not to immediately have the results of your action on the turn and be allowed to speculate along with the other posters from there.


One thing strikes me about this post and that is player specific actions. It is a rare player who will 3 bet on the big bets unless he either has position with a big draw or is out of position with a hand that will beat any big pair. This guy is a rare bird and is something we as posters cannot see because he is a player in your game. What I can tell you is that some players will get my money most of the time and some players will not. This is part of your journey as you mature into a good player and play higher limits.


Don't beat yourself up over this hand. If your not laying down some winners, then your not playing right. Of course, this subject is a topic for discussion all in itself.


Good Luck,

Dale Duguid

I am not very good in analyzing pot odds much less memorizing them. But looking at Dave's analyses where the raiser could possibly have 76 aside from a J, Dave's only out is an A on the river. If I remember correctly, with 2 outs the odds of hitting the set on the river is about 45 to 1 (is this accurate?) and the pot is only offering him 14 to 1. Granting that if a 4 comes, giving him a higher 2 pairs, he is vulnerable to a J which turned out to be the case. So, how can his folding on the turn be a weak-tight play? I think he made the correct fold. Enlightening comments will be appreciated.

The hands which the 3-better could reasonably have are JJ,77,66,76, and Jx (with x meaning any card not a little one)


If the 3-bettor has any trips, then Dave has only two outs, the Aces, from the remaining 46 unseen cards. That would be 23 to 1. In this situation, Dave would be correct to fold. But I think it's giving too much credit to the 3-bettor to put him on trips. Even if I'm suspicious that's he's got them, I still want to see them and would call on the turn and river.


If the 3-bettor has 67 (or any two pair if he played something weak like J7 suited), then Dave has 8 outs, the two Aces, the three Jacks, and the three 4s. That would be approximately 6 to 1.


If the 3-bettor has Jx, then Dave is already winning and should be raising for value as well as to knock-out the players behind him who may be drawing to gut shots.


The only hand Dave should be unwilling to call is if the 3-bettor has trips. And since Dave thought a check-raise was more likely if the 3-bettor had trips, it's easier to lower the % chance that that is the opponents hand.


Bare minimum, I would call the 3-bet on the turn and call again on the river. I wouldn't fold an overpair with a board like this.

1. Yes, I like your raise.


2. I would call the hand down all the way.