Re: Nut flush on double-paired board?
 

[ QUOTE ]
QT probably doesn't bluff.

Most weak players(and it appears this guy is) will check behind with Jack, or a flush. You are missing way too much value not bettign that river. No one at this level is going to bluff raise you out with a worse hand.

The turn bet is just a pot bloater that gives you no info, no fold equity, and leaves you oop in a spot where you no idea what is going on on most rivers. Bets like this will get torn apart vs good players.

[/ QUOTE ]

Turn bet seems seriously alright to me. I'm not trying to ram and jam like crazy with a flush here, and I ain't gonna check.

Re: Nut flush on double-paired board?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bets like this will get torn apart vs good players.

[/ QUOTE ]
I use bets like this semi-frequently. I use them in the following situations:

a) With a draw vs. weak villian who will let me see the river for cheap, but who will bet more than I would if I check.
b) With a big hand that I'm not worried about being drawn out on vs. a weak player who I'm pretty sure is drawing.
c) With a big hand vs. a strong player to induce a bluff.
d) With a draw/bluff vs. a strong player after I've busted him with c.

Re: Nut flush on double-paired board?
 

Oh yeah, as for the actual hand:
Bet $100-$120 or so, fold to a raise.

I like it particularly in this spot, because he's very likely drawing.

Re: Nut flush on double-paired board?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bets like this will get torn apart vs good players.

[/ QUOTE ]
I use bets like this semi-frequently. I use them in the following situations:

a) With a draw vs. weak villian who will let me see the river for cheap, but who will bet more than I would if I check.
b) With a big hand that I'm not worried about being drawn out on vs. a weak player who I'm pretty sure is drawing.
c) With a big hand vs. a strong player to induce a bluff.
d) With a draw vs. a strong player after I've busted him with c.

[/ QUOTE ]

a) Ok, I might bet a little less though if he is that weak.
b) I bet about 3/4 pot in these spots, since they call anyways.
c) Ok.
d) Not sure If I understand, please explain more.

Re: Nut flush on double-paired board?
 

hehe, for some reason I thought he was talking about the turn.

Dumle

Re: Nut flush on double-paired board?
 

[ QUOTE ]
d) Not sure If I understand, please explain more.

[/ QUOTE ]
If I used the old "small bet to induce a bluff" line on a strong player in the past, and it worked, I am much more likely to make this same move with a semi-bluff in the future.

Since the most common hands for me to make this with (when I'm trying to induce a bluff) are nut-flush, full-house, set on drawless board, the line shows a ton of strength, and may make him lay down a lot of hands. If he just calls, well, he let me try to hit my draw for cheap.

Whether I do the weak-lead/fold, weak-lead/3-bet or weak-lead/call c/r, bf, b/c b/rr, etc. depends on my hand, the player, my read, stack sizes, board texture, etc.

A recent thread.

Results
 

Thanks for the comments everyone

On the river, I bet $100 and villain called with QJo.
I liked the bet at the time, but I didn't want to be results-oriented, good to see that most of you like this bet here.

Re: Nut flush on double-paired board?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Oh yeah, as for the actual hand:
Bet $100-$120 or so, fold to a raise.

I like it particularly in this spot, because he's very likely drawing.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he's likely to be drawing, then why are we bet/folding?

Re: Nut flush on double-paired board?
 

Because if he has a flush, he's not going to raise.