Re: The turn paradox.
 

Bet. Any K would have wanted to probe you on the flop for AK.

Re: The turn paradox.
 

Why is J9 folding this turn now that he's double gutshot?

Re: The turn paradox.
 

Ok, so if you are correct and our LAG doesn't have a king then the queston becomes how often will he c/r bluff, and how often will he fold? My feeling is that you make more money with less risk by checking behind and picking up a bluff or a call on the River.

Re: The turn paradox.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so if you are correct and our LAG doesn't have a king then the queston becomes how often will he c/r bluff, and how often will he fold? My feeling is that you make more money with less risk by checking behind and picking up a bluff or a call on the River.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you need to think about the possible holdings he could limp in with... call a raise and call a bet on the flop...

Personally, I dont think he has a K here... if he is a LAG with avg. aggression, I think the avg LAG with a K would c/r and lead. Therefore I would not read him as having a K here. However, when you consider the possible limping hands he could play from his position preflop... many could be strong draws like Q-J or J-9 or he could have the best case scenario and that is he has a worse ten. He could easily have a J-10 or Q-10 or 9-10 type holding.

Why would you check the turn when it is obvious he is going to pay you off here with a worse ten. Plus if he holds J-9 or Q-J he has a strong draw to improve against your mediocre current holding and is not folding. You need to bet and charge him the maximum to draw against or gain the additional bets from him paying you off with a worse ten when a blank falls on river!

You would feel the worst if a Q or J comes on river and you checked the turn. Now you are reluctantly paying him off b/c of your faulty turn play of giving him infinite odds to draw by checking. All in all... if you read him to not have a K then it is paramount that you make him pay to beat you.

Re: The turn paradox.
 

I think you need to think about the possible holdings he could limp in with... call a raise and call a bet on the flop...

Personally, I dont think he has a K here... if he is a LAG with avg. aggression, I think the avg LAG with a K would c/r and lead. Therefore I would not read him as having a K here. However, when you consider the possible limping hands he could play from his position preflop... many could be strong draws like Q-J or J-9 or he could have the best case scenario and that is he has a worse ten. He could easily have a J-10 or Q-10 or 9-10 type holding.

Why would you check the turn when it is obvious he is going to pay you off here with a worse ten. Plus if he holds J-9 or Q-J he has a strong draw to improve against your mediocre current holding and is not folding. You need to bet and charge him the maximum to draw against or gain the additional bets from him paying you off with a worse ten when a blank falls on river!

You would feel the worst if a Q or J comes on river and you checked the turn. Now you are reluctantly paying him off b/c of your faulty turn play of giving him infinite odds to draw by checking. All in all... if you read him to not have a K then it is paramount that you make him pay to beat you.

just a little bump!

Re: The turn paradox.
 

Ok, I'm convinved. Frankly, I overlooked the 2 strong draw possibilities. Under this circumstance, it's certainly a bet.
Regarding how an EP limper with a K would play vs a raise, is the concensus that: you'd here from a LAG on the Flop, that you'd here from a good player on the Turn or River, and that you'd be check-called all the way by a weak player?

Re: The turn paradox.
 

not sure if anyone addressed this yet, but I think this is a fold PF.

I could do the math, but a 31/10/1.1 limping 5 off the button has ATo beat, not positive though and you do have position.

Re: The turn paradox.
 

[ QUOTE ]
not sure if anyone addressed this yet, but I think this is a fold PF.

I could do the math, but a 31/10/1.1 limping 5 off the button has ATo beat, not positive though and you do have position.

[/ QUOTE ]

In terms of hand value it's probably even, but "you do have position".

Re: The turn paradox.
 

meh. it's close.

and regarding the turn. my default play is to check, especially against an aggressive player. but also against an avg player. I would bet against a calling station bad player.

so bet 10-20% of the time and check the rest.

Re: The turn paradox.
 

[ QUOTE ]
meh. it's close.

and regarding the turn. my default play is to check, especially against an aggressive player. but also against an avg player. I would bet against a calling station bad player.

so bet 10-20% of the time and check the rest.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hate giving free cards here. A checkraise means you are behind a wast majority of the time, so you shouldn't fear it. Better to bet the turn and when called you usually have a value bet on the river.