Hand against a 2+2er

sfer · #1 06-28-2004, 04:23 AM

CO is a 2+2er.

Party Poker 0.50/1 Hold'em (9 handed)

Preflop: Hero is SB with J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. MP3 posts a blind of $0.50.
1 fold, UTG+1 calls, 1 fold, MP2 calls, MP3 (poster) checks, CO calls, 1 fold, Hero raises, 1 fold, UTG+1 folds, MP2 calls, MP3 folds, CO calls.

Flop: (9 SB) T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (3 players)
Hero bets, MP2 calls, CO raises, Hero calls, MP2 calls.

Turn: (7.50 BB) A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (3 players)
Hero checks, MP2 checks, CO bets, Hero raises, MP2 folds, CO 3-bets, Hero calls.

River: (13.50 BB) 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (2 players)
Your action?

BottlesOf · #2 06-28-2004, 04:33 AM

Your action?

Curse. A lot.

chief444 · #3 06-28-2004, 07:34 AM

Given the turn action I probably check/call. However I think betting out and folding to a raise may be better. The only hand I can see that you have beat here is QT, but I think it is unlikely that QT would have 3-bet the turn.

Why the turn check/raise as opposed to just leading out?

Schneids · #4 06-28-2004, 07:54 AM

I see one hand you can beat, obviously... QT. I think check/calling the river is your only option since you'll run into QT at a rate more often than 14.5:1.

I also think this hand illustrates why it might just be better to bet out and call a raise on the turn. When you check raise, your hand hates a 3-bet, yet you've got enough outs where you have to call a 3-bet to see the river.

Conversely, as an example board for when I would consider check/folding on the river:
If the flop looked like [Ts 3d Qd] and the turn was Ac, and the river brought a 4d.

Michael Davis · #5 06-28-2004, 07:58 AM

I bet. The only hand that makes sense is QT, a set of treys, or A3s. The last two just became less likely. No way I've got him on a flush draw.

I fold to a raise.

Also, I strongly dislike your turn checkraise. Lots of opponents will check with smaller pairs here. Your opponent is not an idiot, either, so he knows there's a good chance you've got an ace and bets anyways.

-Michael

sfer · #6 06-28-2004, 09:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Why the turn check/raise as opposed to just leading out?

[/ QUOTE ]

To fold out the limper. I was rather fond of that move. Judging from the responses, I guess I'm alone.

sfer · #7 06-28-2004, 09:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I strongly dislike your turn checkraise. Lots of opponents will check with smaller pairs here. Your opponent is not an idiot, either, so he knows there's a good chance you've got an ace and bets anyways.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a reasonable chance it gets checked through, but isn't that and the risk of getting 3-bet worth the increased likelihood of folding out the 3rd player?

chief444 · #8 06-28-2004, 09:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There is a reasonable chance it gets checked through, but isn't that and the risk of getting 3-bet worth the increased likelihood of folding out the 3rd player?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think that in this case the fact that CO is I'm assuming a solid player (2+2'er...hopefully solid [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]) makes check/raising here not that great of a play. When he bets the turn I think you know you will need to improve to win the hand anyway and can expect to get 3-bet fairly often. Although the advantage of folding out the limper is it will very occasionally avoid a split pot for you. I just don't think your chances of winning this pot over CO in the first place warrant putting two extra BB's in on the turn.

sfer · #9 06-28-2004, 10:53 AM

These are good points. I'm converted.

B Dids · #10 06-28-2004, 10:54 AM

If this was last nigth, accusing a 2+2er of being solid may not be the best idea.

GAMBOOL!!!!!