Re: Countering a Good Hand Reader
 

Screw this call then bet the turn stuff. Way too many scare cards can come off that cost you turn action. Get the 4th bet in now and lead.

Re: Countering a Good Hand Reader
 

[ QUOTE ]
Screw this call then bet the turn stuff. Way too many scare cards can come off that cost you turn action. Get the 4th bet in now and lead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh, I only think you're losing bets about ~20% of the time online (18% FD + 3ish aces). A 4-bet+lead would work against more aggressive opposition so I def. don't mind it but I find myself getting raised on the turn a lot less when I cap the flop.

Realistically he isn't putting us on A4s either way though.

Rob

Re: Countering a Good Hand Reader
 

[ QUOTE ]
Screw this call then bet the turn stuff. Way too many scare cards can come off that cost you turn action. Get the 4th bet in now and lead.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a cap/lead is more likely to kill the action than the probability of 9 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]s and 3 A or K possible overcards to his pair hitting are. So something like 25% of the time our action might be killed by the turn card.

Only if he's on the LAG side of TAG would I cap/lead.

Re: Countering a Good Hand Reader
 

[ QUOTE ]
Screw this call then bet the turn stuff. Way too many scare cards can come off that cost you turn action. Get the 4th bet in now and lead.

[/ QUOTE ]
I could not agree more with this statement, if any A,4 or diamond hits the turn or an overcard to the villains pocket pair, the hero will wish he wouldve capped the flop since the villain will be very unlikely to raise the turn. The hero induced extra action from the card reader by checkraising the flop. The hero should cash in on his deceptive play right now on the flop by capping.

Re: Countering a Good Hand Reader
 

Whatever you do, DO NOT CHECK THE TURN.

I think calling and betting and capping are both reasonable lines. I prefer capping because there is no chance at all that UTG+2 is folding on the turn to a cap and lead, while there is still a chance that he raises the turn. I think the ability to bet/3bet the turn is not so different between calling and capping the flop that calling makes up the missed SB.

Re: Countering a Good Hand Reader
 

I hate checking the turn and he's unlikely to fold the turn but I think you're lucky if he raises the turn half of the time regardless of which line you choose so I'd just get an extra .5 SB now.

Re: Countering a Good Hand Reader
 

The turn came the 4 of clubs. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

I did just call the flop 3 bet, and then wish I hadn't.

I bet the turn, and he just called down with JJ after another rag hit the river.

Re: Countering a Good Hand Reader
 

IMHO. Hindsight will always determine how good your flop play was on this hand.

Re: Countering a Good Hand Reader
 

Heres something no one mentioned: If hes a good hand reader - and has you pegged as a solid player too.....

Isn't there like no way he'll peg you on A4 there as pretty much everyone agrees you should've folded pre-flop?

If you cap it - it seems like he'll think you have a set or top pair w/your suited connectors.

Re: Countering a Good Hand Reader
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Screw this call then bet the turn stuff. Way too many scare cards can come off that cost you turn action. Get the 4th bet in now and lead.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a cap/lead is more likely to kill the action than the probability of 9 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]s and 3 A or K possible overcards to his pair hitting are. So something like 25% of the time our action might be killed by the turn card.

Only if he's on the LAG side of TAG would I cap/lead.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is that since everyone is advocating call/lead rather than call/checkraise, it should be obvious that the 4-bet lead line is vastly superior. Especially on a board that drawy, our opponent isn't folding anything to that line. The only justification for call/leading is if you think he'll raise the turn with an overpair, letting us 3-bet, but that doesn't seem to be part of the thought process here.