Re: Board double pairs without me, Keep betting?
 

Why didn't you bet the turn? I'd bet the turn and the river. Some idiot with A high or a possibly a lower pocket pair is viable to call.

Re: Board double pairs without me, Keep betting?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why didn't you bet the turn? I'd bet the turn and the river. Some idiot with A high or a possibly a lower pocket pair is definitely going to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

Re: Board double pairs without me, Keep betting?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
that Q changed nothing and was a fantastic card for you b/c loose players now thing "oh, duh, he no have queen." turn check is very costly vs. these opponents imo.

bet the turn. bet the river. this shows a little trigger shyness that you really need to get over b/c many many bets are made in pots like this.

-Barron

[/ QUOTE ]

Should the OP be betting the turn and river planning to fold to a raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

OP should betting with the intention of calling a raise, esp from the next to act. If Mr 73% calls and the SB check raises, it's muckable, but otherwise you have to call if it's only one more bet back to you. Plenty of opponents are gonna think you have "A" high and raise their PPs on you.

What if he had...
 

Doesn't Sklansky mention this in HPFAP. Something about checking the turn on a paired board against aggressive opponents. I think in the example its heads up, and the Hero is last, but isn't there some similarity? Ok, if either of them has a Q or a 3 we're probably getting raised if he bets the turn. A flush draw will call, i'm assuming, as will A-high, and maybe K-high. The absence of flop action leads me to believe that nobody has a flush draw, but somebody might have a 3. Is checking and giving what is probably a 3 outer a free card really that horrible?

My first reaction was to say "bet the turn", but i'm not so sure, anybody feel like tearing my post apart? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

lf