Betting to induce a check-raise

[Nate tha' Great]

The SB is exactly half-way between a LAG clown and a full-out Maniac. I'm not playing too many hands since the BB is doing a good job of isolating him. SB is capable of defending his blind with a wide range of hands.

When the board came out paired, I KNEW THAT HE WAS GOING TO ATTEMPT A CHECK-RAISE ON THE TURN. The standard play against a decent, aggressive player is to check behind on the turn since he'll check-raise with a hand that you beat just often enough to make you vomit. Against this particular opponent, who bluffs far too much, I felt that a check-raise would be +EV for me.

That make any sense? And, given that read, should I have 3-bet?

Party Poker 10/20 Hold'em (6 max, 6 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: NateThaGreat is UTG with 6/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 6/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
<font color="CC3333">NateThaGreat raises</font>, MP folds, CO folds, Button folds, SB calls, BB folds.

Flop: (5 SB) T/images/graemlins/heart.gif, T/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 5/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="blue">(2 players) </font>
SB checks, <font color="CC3333">NateThaGreat bets</font>, SB calls.

Turn: (3.50 BB) 8/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="blue">(2 players) </font>
SB checks, <font color="CC3333">NateThaGreat bets</font>, <font color="CC3333">SB raises</font>, NateThaGreat calls.

River: (7.50 BB) 7/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="blue">(2 players) </font>
<font color="CC3333">SB bets</font>, NateThaGreat calls.

Final Pot: 9.50 BB

Results in white below: <font color="white">
SB shows 7s Js (two pair, tens and sevens).
NateThaGreat shows 6s 6d (two pair, tens and sixes).
Outcome: SB wins 9.50 BB. </font>

[NLSoldier]

If you think a checkraise is +EV for you then wouldnt that mean a 3-bet should be +EV as well? Given your read i think you should probably 3-bet, but at that point a cap from him will probably make you vomit. Basically i think if you are going to bet the turn KNOWING he will CR, then youve got to go ahead and 3-bet, what to do from there im not so sure...

OK those were my initial thoughts.....now im editing because ive thought about it for a few minutes, and realizing 3-betting isnt automatically +EV becuase he will sometimes fold when hes behind and likely only cap when hes ahead (but maybe still often enough when behind that you will be inclined to pay him off?) Now im starting to think id 3-bet but probably fold to a cap. By calling the turn and river you do get to see a showdown, but also run the risk of him catching one of his overcards (assuming he has 2 overcards). So im really not sure which was is better. I guess one more benifit of just calling the turn is that you will probably get a chance to get 2 bets in on the river if you catch your 6. So now im starting to like the way you played it.

[Schneids]

A 3-bet on the turn shuts out a total bluff and probably gets it to fold. Calling and then calling a bet on the river is the best +EV play, methinks. In the case of this hand, Nate got his opponent to put in 2 bets on the turn with a 6 outer, and his opponent would have likely put in another one on the river even if he missed. If you know your opponent will call the 3-bet then sure, it's +EV. The problem is that many will shutdown and decide you actually have the trips he is representing.

I like Nate's line.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
If you think a checkraise is +EV for you then wouldnt that mean a 3-bet should be +EV as well? Given your read i think you should probably 3-bet, but at that point a cap from him will probably make you vomit. Basically i think if you are going to bet the turn KNOWING he will CR, then youve got to go ahead and 3-bet, what to do from there im not so sure...

OK those were my initial thoughts.....now im editing because ive thought about it for a few minutes, and realizing 3-betting isnt automatically +EV becuase he will sometimes fold when hes behind and likely only cap when hes ahead (but maybe still often enough when behind that you will be inclined to pay him off?) Now im starting to think id 3-bet but probably fold to a cap. By calling the turn and river you do get to see a showdown, but also run the risk of him catching one of his overcards (assuming he has 2 overcards). So im really not sure which was is better. I guess one more benifit of just calling the turn is that you will probably get a chance to get 2 bets in on the river if you catch your 6. So now im starting to like the way you played it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm exaggerating a little bit about the check-raise being +EV, but my point was that a high enough percentage of his check-raises will be bluffs or semibluffs that I'm not going to risk checking behind on the turn and giving him a free card. The interesting point (and this might be because I just got done reading Theory of Poker) is that you clearly should bet against an opponent who never bluffs, since you can easily fold to a check-raise, and you should also bet against an opponent who bluffs too often, but you should check behind against an opponent who bluffs about the right percentage of the time.

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to risk checking behind on the turn and giving him a free card

[/ QUOTE ]

that seems like the important bit to me

i think you need to believe that you are close to a favourite to be in front on the turn to do this - say you had As9s and the play went the same way - would you still bet the turn or would you check behind and call the induced bluff on the river ?

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[Your Mom]

I think you should 3 bet because you wouldn't mind a fold. He most likely has 6 clean outs which he ended up hitting.

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you should 3 bet because you wouldn't mind a fold. He most likely has 6 clean outs which he ended up hitting.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a dinky pot. 6 clean outs hit roughly 13% of the time.

If I 3-bet and get a fold, I win 6.5BB 100% of the time.

If I call the turn then call the river bet, I win an extra BB 87% of the time, and lose 7.5BB 13% of the time (The 6.5BB I could have won had I 3-bet, plus the one extra BB I invest on the river call). -7.5 * .13 = -.975BB

.87 + -.975 = -.105BB

Therefore by my calculations it is .105BB better to raise, if we can see their cards. This doesn't take into account the times your 3-bet opens you up to a 4-bet (whether it be a bluff 4-bet or a legit one) and you lose even more bets calling down with a loser or folding a winner. I think this tips it towards calling, but it's definitely close. Make the pot a couple BB's larger and I think it's a definite raise.

EDITS: Alright we're good this time on math.

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
EDITS: Alright we're good this time on math

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe so but i reckon he has 10 outs on the actual hand

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
i think you need to believe that you are close to a favourite to be in front on the turn to do this - say you had As9s and the play went the same way - would you still bet the turn or would you check behind and call the induced bluff on the river ?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, in that case I'd check behind on the turn, since one of the hands that I think he'll have here alot (considering that he'll play almost anything from his blinds) is something containing a 5.

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[/ QUOTE ]