Re: Turn Action: Donked by a Trickster
 

Shillx, are we really afraid of the straight here? Would BB 3-bet PF with 98, 43, or 83? It seems like AK, A7-A5 or 77-55 are the culprits here ... maybe even your A8 hand. (Tough to 3 bet the field OOP with 77-55 though, no?)

If we're afraid of these, why not raise the turn here to test the waters?

Worst-case is that BB 3-bets the turn, we call for the straight & fold to a bet if we miss assuming the baby set or better A-kicker. But, in this case, we're no worse off than the hand as you've laid it out.

We could win if the villain has KK, QQ.

We could earn a call on the turn & check on the river (which we could take or not), saving a bet if we're beat.

No?

Re: Turn Action: Donked by a Trickster
 

Here's my take on Shillx's example.

I think BB would only 3-bet PF with AA-TT and AK. The 3-bet the flop on tells me he has an overpair and not AK. On the turn you now beat KK-TT, putting yourself as a huge favorite to win the hand. However, if you raise the turn he will probably fold KK-TT right there. So you smooth call and let him bet out on the river, and raise him there. He 3-bets again, which tells you he can beat your pair of aces because the river card doesn't change anything. So I think the BB has AA and that is that.

Am I way off?

Edit: fixed a couple typos

Re: Turn Action: Donked by a Trickster
 

I agree with Fizzle's thinking. AA
still don't think I would have played it this way.

Re: Turn Action: Donked by a Trickster
 

You call because it's heads up, you have a monster which the bb probably doesn't give you credit for, the pot is small, and it's extremely likely the villian has a better hand. He's aggressive and either bluffing or semi-bluffing so you want to squeeze some extra bet out of him.

If you raise you allow him to get away cheaply.

Re: Turn Action: Donked by a Trickster
 

Your reasoning is good but I think you're missing a few hands from the initial range. I could see BB 3-betting here against this many opponents with a few high suited connectors like AQs/KQs, maybe even QJs. But after the rainbow low card flop these hands would all be removed from my list as well.

Re: Turn Action: Donked by a Trickster
 

[ QUOTE ]
I could see BB 3-betting here against this many opponents with a few high suited connectors like AQs/KQs, maybe even QJs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? But you'll be out of position for the rest of the hand.

Re: Turn Action: Donked by a Trickster
 

[ QUOTE ]
Really? But you'll be out of position for the rest of the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, the position would be bad. But against 5 players you have huge equity with these hands as they have high card/suited/connected strength.

Re: Turn Action: Donked by a Trickster
 

Interestingly I just ran this through pokerstove. I think calling and check/raising a favorable flop might be a better play for those hands against a tight raiser or even a tag. We have an edge but not a huge one.

Against a tight raiser

514,834 games 18.631 secs 27,633 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 29.0121 % 27.63% 01.42% { QQ+, AJs+, AQo+ }
Hand 2: 19.1182 % 17.74% 01.40% { AQs, KQs, QJs }
Hand 3: 13.0405 % 12.29% 00.77% { random }
Hand 4: 12.9272 % 12.17% 00.78% { random }
Hand 5: 12.9810 % 12.24% 00.76% { random }
Hand 6: 12.9211 % 12.17% 00.77% { random }


Against a TAG

277,015 games 9.081 secs 30,504 games/sec

Board:
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 25.2939 % 23.92% 01.37% { 99+, ATs+, KJs+, AJo+, KQo }
Hand 2: 21.7295 % 20.30% 01.42% { AQs, KQs, QJs }
Hand 3: 13.2050 % 12.39% 00.81% { random }
Hand 4: 13.2257 % 12.41% 00.82% { random }
Hand 5: 13.2817 % 12.48% 00.80% { random }
Hand 6: 13.2642 % 12.47% 00.80% { random }

Re: Turn Action: Donked by a Trickster
 

[ QUOTE ]

Yup, the position would be bad. But against 5 players you have huge equity with these hands as they have high card/suited/connected strength.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, but what about your relative position to the pre-flop raiser? With those hands if you hit a nice flop you can check-raise a big field for 2 bets assuming the pfr leads out. You're sort of giving up an edge now to exploit a bigger edge later. Just a thought.

Edit: I missed the poker stove post just above, looks like I was on the right track.

Re: Turn Action: Donked by a Trickster
 

I also don't like this play at all.

Winning a small pot is still infinitely better than losing a bigger pot by mucking to one final bet.

If he did have KK-TT (using the hand range from a prior post), then I'd be more than happy to win the pot with a turn-raise, rather than allow the Villain a miracle card on the river just to build a bigger pot. Also, we don't know that he has KK-TT, so raising the turn gets us the additional information sooner, and can possibly get some hands to fold. Given the river appeared to be a blank, I'd bet after a check & probably make a crying call if he raised.

If BB had AA or AK-AQ, I still don't like this play. Raising the turn would most likely cause the 3 bets to be in on the turn (certainly with AA .. but maybe just a call with AK-AQ saving you 1 bet from the above posted action), when you still have a live straight redraw to beat him!!! If the river is a blank, you can fold to his bet (or check behind if he's crazy enough to try a check raise), and you still muck having lost the 3 bets of the posted action. If the river is not a blank, you can win a few more from him.

Given you're going to fold to a river 3 bet, I don't the raise after your redraw to beat your most feared hands didn't come.

Perhaps I'm missing some information about the BB, or something else altogether. I don't see it yet.