Applying a few concepts from TOP

[stantheman]

So I'm half-way thru Theory of Poker for the 1st time and feeling pretty scholarly, when I stumbled upon a hand that allowed me to use a few of the plays I had read about just hours earlier.

The game is UB 1/2, and the table is pretty loose passive (esp for UB). I'm in LP with 7 /images/graemlins/spade.gif7 /images/graemlins/heart.gif

1 MP limper, I limp, CO and button limp, SB calls, BB checks his option. 6 to the flop.

Flop is A /images/graemlins/spade.gifJ /images/graemlins/spade.gif7 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

Checked to me, I bet, CO calls, button calls, blinds fold, MP calls. 4 of us left.

Turn is J /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

Checked to me, I check, its checked thru.

<font color="blue"> My thought process here was twofold. If CO or button bet behind me, I check raise to maximize the pot. If it's checked thru, there are a ton of draws out there and no one but me has shown any aggression yet. Lets let a few of these check/callers hit their draws and catch up. </font>

River is the spectacular Q /images/graemlins/spade.gif

As if on cue, MP bets out, I call, CO folds, button raises, MP calls, I 3-bet, button folds, MP calls.

<font color="blue"> I decide to go for the overcall here. Worst case is I get 1 or 2 callers behind me, best case one of them hits his draw and raises and I get to 3-bet. </font>

MP flips 9 /images/graemlins/diamond.gifJ /images/graemlins/heart.gif and MHIG.

Comments? Any of these plays used incorrectly here?

[josie_wales]

Bet the turn

[stantheman]

Sorry, just realized this should be in Micro. Let's pretend its 2/4. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[maurile]

I agree with josie_wales. People with reasonable draws will call your turn bet. If their draws don't get there, the turn will be your last chance to get any more bets from them.

[Homer]

Most people here will tell you to bet the turn, but most people here don't bet the flop and check-raise the turn enough. You should do this a lot, especially in online games, which tend to be quite aggressive on average.

I don't like your river call, however. Your hand is close to a monster, not a merely decent hand that would prefer to go for a few overcalls while only risking a single bet, rather than raising and leaving yourself open to a three-bet. You want to maximize the number of bets going into the pot, and whether you "risk" one or two bets in doing so is inconsequential. In this situation you will get the most bets into the pot by raising. You will at least get two bets, as the original bettor will call the raise, and you might get more, as the players behind you will either coldcall or more likely three-bet with a flush, allowing you to cap. By just calling, you can't make much unless someone behind you has a flush, but in that case you are just as well off by raising yourself.

-- Homer

[Homer]

Yes, that is the upside to betting. But you also must consider the downside of not being able to trap the field for multiple big bets. If the two players remaining to act are passive, then I agree that betting is best. However, in online games, players will almost always take your turn check as a sign of weakness and will bet very marginal hands. I'd guess the probability of one of the last two players betting in a typical online 2/4 game is 60-70%.

-- Homer

[JTG51]

Most people here will tell you to bet the turn, but most people here don't bet the flop and check-raise the turn enough. You should do this a lot, especially in online games, which tend to be quite aggressive on average.

I agree that most people don't use that line of play enough, including me, but I don't think this is a good spot for it. With the Jack pairing there's a better than usual chance that a bet will be raised, giving Hero a chance to 3-bet. If the turn had been a blank I'd be more inclinded to go for a check raise.

[RacersEdge]

I'm not sure what theoretical point you are applying. If people are on a draw, why let them draw for free? I see the faking weakness aspect of like someone mentioned, but I don't see it maximizing profit when so many loose players will stay with you on the turn if you bet. Plus, I think some would think you were going for a check raise and it backfired on the turn. I would bet the turn.

[Homer]

I'm not sure what theoretical point you are applying.

I don't know what you mean by this.

All I was saying was that you can't just say "Draws will call, so I'll bet." There is more to it than that.

[J.R.]

I think his theoretical point is it rules when you get the most money in the pot when you have the best hand, and whether check-raising will get more money into the pot than betting out is something to evaluate when deciding you choice of action.

[Louie Landale]

Turn check really only makes sense if you figure [1] few will call your bet, or [2] the players behind you are aggressive and may bet the hands they WILL call with. Neither of these apply to weak passive games. They call too often and don't bet enough. By checking you are just giving up money from the draws that WILL call but don't make it; and in fact losing money from the draws that will call AND make it. The "let the draws catch up" argument only applies if they are NOT going to call. And if you get raised on the turn you'll get to 3-bet which is really "maximizing" the pot.

In this case if you bet the turn you'll get 3 calls AND still get to 3-bet the river.

Bet 'em when you've got 'em almost always applies to loose passive games.

No brainer go-for-overcall then 3-bet on the river; at least in a reasonable game. But even THEN raising has merit since the players behind you, in this game, may call a double bet with an A or a J anyway and may NOT raise with the flush.

- Louie

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
All I was saying was that you can't just say "Draws will call, so I'll bet." There is more to it than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then how about, draws will call on the turn (when they think they are drawing live), but not on the river when they miss.

[sfer]

I would bet the turn. The straight and flush draws are coming along anyway, so you're likely missing bets by letting it check through.

Further, it looks like MP bricked on his attempt to checkraise you on the turn and you could have trapped the field for several bets by reraising him. The draws would have paid you off on the river regardless--might as well charge them while they're drawing.

That plus you ran into a problem that happens sometimes when you slowplay: you missed bets because you had an opponent slowplaying a second best hand.

[Your Mom]

There certainly is nothing wrong with betting but c/r the turn is a play that must be used frequently in multi way pots. It gets you multiple bets on just one street - the best thing that can possibly happern.

Sidenote: Just recently I was in an aggressive 5/10. Was c/r every turn for 3 or 4 orbits. Pretty soon I was getting free cards left and right. Made a lot of hands that way and was basically owning the table. Must use the c/r. Even if you are risking a free card.

[Homer]

Then how about, draws will call on the turn (when they think they are drawing live), but not on the river when they miss.

As I said, that is one thing that must be considered, but it's not all there is to it.

-- Homer

[bunky9590]

Uh, Stan, Bet the turn. Draws are going to call anyway.

UB 1-2 isn't 50-100 at the Taj. (Even the I'd still bet)

[Homer]

There certainly is nothing wrong with betting but c/r the turn is a play that must be used frequently in multi way pots. It gets you multiple bets on just one street - the best thing that can possibly happern.

Wow, finally someone other than me has mentioned the reward aspect of checking.

Sidenote: Just recently I was in an aggressive 5/10. Was c/r every turn for 3 or 4 orbits. Pretty soon I was getting free cards left and right. Made a lot of hands that way and was basically owning the table. Must use the c/r. Even if you are risking a free card.

Exactly, it's a risk/reward thing. It seems that people are worried about the risk of missing out on bets if it's checked through, and are not even taking into consideration the possible reward of trapping the field for multiple bets. I think JTG made a valid point when he stated that there is a good chance that someone who will bet behind you will raise if you bet, given that the middle flop card paired on the turn, so maybe checking is not best in this particular case, but it at least needs to be considered. Also, Louie is correct that betting is best if the game is truly loose-passive, but I have a hard time believing that it was, given that almost no online games are loose-passive. It seems that many posts start out as "Typical loose-passive game. I raise UTG, UTG+1 three-bets, button caps...."

-- Homer

[Homer]

Uh, Stan, Bet the turn. Draws are going to call anyway.

This thread makes me want to puke. Why does everyone want to bet just because "Draws are going to call"? Last time I checked, poker players were supposed to consider all options available to them, not just bet because draws will call.

What if you suspected that if you checked one of the players behind you would bet, but if you bet they would only call? Would you still bet because draws will call? No, you would check because you want to maximize the amount of money going into the pot, and check-raising would allow you to accomplish that goal.

-- Homer

[Jezebel]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems that many posts start out as "Typical loose-passive game. I raise UTG, UTG+1 three-bets, button caps...."


[/ QUOTE ]

I have always thought the same thing /images/graemlins/grin.gif

As Tommy says "No hand occurs in a vacuum". Checkraising in an aggressive game is very important. If you never checkraise, then you are giving WAY too much information to your opponents. Even if it whiffs there is still some residual value in that your opponent now is not sure what a check from you really means.

[Joe Tall]

[ QUOTE ]
My thought process here was twofold. If CO or button bet behind me, I check raise to maximize the pot

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't think if you bet the turn, it could be raised (especially with the Jack pairing), then you could 3-bet to maximize the pot? Instead you shot a check-raise and minimized the pot.

I think you need a blank on the turn to get check-raise out of such a board. The Jack either scared the $hit of everyone of helped someone. Therefore bet so it's Not-checked through and get your chance to 3-bet if the Jack did help.

Peace,
Joe Tall

[bunky9590]

Are you seriously considering CHECKING that turn?

In hindsight, the check was HORRIBLE! (which is why I would have bet regardless) Who is going to put him on middle pair after showing the aggression? Not me.

The Jack was certainly going to checkraise, agreed? unless he's a complete buffoon. Then stan can go for the overcall if he feels like it (if others are in), if not than three bet that hand. (The Jack may or may not cap, and the draws MAY STILL CALL!)

The river played itself. At 1-2 UB your not trapping the likes of Hellmuth, Chan, Brunson and Ivey, and I think checking that turn through is a crime against civilization. (much less humanity).

[Homer]

Are you seriously considering CHECKING that turn?

Yes, I try to take all of my options into consideration before making a decision. I never said that I would definitely check the turn, just that it should not be dismissed without being given proper consideration. When someone says "Bet because the draws will call", they are not adequately explaining why betting is best. I agree that if you bet, draws will call, but that doesn't mean that betting is necessarily better than check-raising.

In hindsight, the check was HORRIBLE!

This sounds like result-oriented thinking. If you thought there was a 90% chance that someone would bet if you checked, but would only call if you bet, and it just so happened that this was one of the 10% of times in which it was checked through, would you still say that checking was horrible?

The Jack was certainly going to checkraise, agreed? unless he's a complete buffoon. Then stan can go for the overcall if he feels like it (if others are in), if not than three bet that hand. (The Jack may or may not cap, and the draws MAY STILL CALL!)

Yes, the fact that a Jack will raise/check-raise, allowing you to three-bet, is an argument in favor of betting.

The river played itself. At 1-2 UB your not trapping the likes of Hellmuth, Chan, Brunson and Ivey, and I think checking that turn through is a crime against civilization. (much less humanity).

He flat called and then three-bet the river. Why do you think this is a better play than is raising immediately?

-- Homer

[bunky9590]

Actually, I misread the river, I would have popped it immediately, but that's just me. I'm always betting, betting, betting, so my style is a little different from stans. (he's played with me before).
he definitely extracted an extra bet on the river as the other caller probably would have not called my raise.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
As I said, that is one thing that must be considered, but it's not all there is to it.


[/ QUOTE ]

But there are only 2 players left to act behind him and neither raised preflop or on the flop. And if MP has a Jack he might be looking to check/raise.