The turn paradox.
 

UTG+1 is a loose player with average aggression: 31/10/1.1 over 500 hands.

How should I handle this board w/ second pair, ace kicker?

On the one hand, I don't want to give a free to a hand like J9s(which is certainly calling the flop, but will usually fold the turn).

On the other hand, I really don't want to get raised because I may have to fold the best hand or a hand w/ 5 outs.

I'm starting to think that checking behind and calling a river bet unimproved is the best way to handle hands like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Party 20/40 (9 handed)

Preflop: Jeff is MP2 with Ac, Td.
1 fold, UTG+1 calls, 1 fold, Jeff raises, 5 folds, UTG+1 calls.

Flop: (5.50 SB) Th, 4d, Ks (2 players)
UTG+1 checks, Jeff bets, UTG+1 calls.

Turn: (3.75 BB) 7d (2 players)
UTG+1 checks.

Re: The turn paradox.
 

Yeah, the loose-avg aggressive players are kinda tough to play against in these spots. If villian is a total LAG then you can easily call down with good EV, or even check behind and know that he'll bet the river every time. and passive guys are easy too since you can safely fold to the CR.

I think the check behind vs. the type of play who you won't know what to do if he CR's you is probably best. I also try to do the checkbehind more if a large % of rivers will make it easy for me to get a value bet if villian checks. a lot of bad river cards can come here, but if a loosie checks it to you after you show weakness on turn you can probably get some calls from Ahigh, or just about any pair.

Re: The turn paradox.
 

Bet the turn; it will most likely allow you to check the river if you desire, and you've charged him to draw if he's behind.

There are way more hands you are ahead of than those which you trail; don't start checking just because you don't want to be raised. You said he's a loose player and he's shown no strength thus far. There are some opponent's whose calls you should fear; this doesn't really sound like one of them.

The board isn't even all that scary right now, it's better that you get value out of your hand now. What a shame it would be to check the turn, and then check through again when a scary Q, J, or diamond fall, only to find out that he was going to pay you off with a worse hand.

Re: The turn paradox.
 

I bet and call down if raised. I reserve checking behind on the turn for when I'm actually worried I'm behind. Getting c/red here sucks but I really don't think its happening much.

Re: The turn paradox.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I bet and call down if raised. I reserve checking behind on the turn for when I'm actually worried I'm behind. Getting c/red here sucks but I really don't think its happening much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, true that it probably isn't happenning all that much, but since you're saying calling down is correct, then that means you think villian is at least bluffing/semibluffing a decent % here. Also, i think this type of player will wait to turn CR here with a lot of his strongest hands, so a lot of times calling down you'll be only drawing to 0-2 outs which sucks.

However, There are a whole lot hands villian can have that are weak, 4-6 outers, so you'd prefer he paid to have to draw. But if he's just going to fold with those hands, but will likely give you a bet whether or not he hits on the river, by either inducing a bluff or a very loose call, then checking might be better. Overall though, i can see merits for either play, and i doubt that either could be THAT much better than the other. Maybe i'm missing something, but i think that this could easily be a spot good to mix up your play without sacraficing much EV either way.

Re: The turn paradox.
 

FWIW, my default play against a LAG in these situations is to induce the bluff. I've isolated him with my mediocre hand so I'll take (or lose) a small pot and move on.
OTOH, if the guy is a total fish then I'll keep betting until I hit some resistence.

Re: The turn paradox.
 

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, my default play against a LAG in these situations is to induce the bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they're LAGy enough though, then don't you gain more by betting, then calling down if CR'ed, since they'll CR soooo often?

[ QUOTE ]
OTOH, if the guy is a total fish then I'll keep betting until I hit some resistence.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is surely true, since the fish will always call you down with ANY piece of the board, or any weak draw.

The main goal in this type of spot(as in pretty much any poker situation) though is to induce the opponent to make the biggest mistakes, while avoiding making them yourself. So its really player dependant here, as to what types of mistakes the opponent is prone to making. If he bluff CR's too much, then its an easy bet/calldown. IF he falls for the bluff induced turn check too much then its best to check behind. tough to say what would cause this particular player to make the biggest error.

Obviously, players who don't make obvious mistakes here are the toughest to play against. so i don't know what would be optimal play vs. a perfect player is??

Re: The turn paradox.
 

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, my default play against a LAG in these situations is to induce the bluff. I've isolated him with my mediocre hand so I'll take (or lose) a small pot and move on.


[/ QUOTE ]


Inducing a bluff turn checkraise + a bluff river bet > Inducing a bluff river bet.

Re: The turn paradox.
 

[ QUOTE ]
so i don't know what would be optimal play vs. a perfect player is??

[/ QUOTE ]

Vs. a perfect player, a mixed strategy to optimize shania is best.

Re: The turn paradox.
 

Our LAG here is said to be a loose player with average aggression. I don't think this player will bluff check raise the turn often enough to justify a bet. I play almost exclusively on line so reads are a little harder to make.

I would definitely give a maniac a chance to burn off some more chips but not someone with average aggression. This guy limped in so he's no maniac.

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.

Re: The turn paradox.
 

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: The turn paradox.
 

I think you would definitely hear from a good player probably earlier then you would hear from a LAG. My thought being if the good player has a bad K then he would want to find out the relative strength of that holding quickly.

A LAG who seems to have avg aggression I think would wake up on the flop. An overly aggressive LAG may wait for the turn, it is a lot harder to predict... LAG's seem to pick some extraordinary lines when they play... but all in all... I think someone who limped preflop and you don't hear from on the flop probably doesnt have a K...

Re: The turn paradox.
 

I absolutely can't find any reason to check here if you feel you have the best hand. If you have best hand it is very vulnerable to all holdings that the early limper may have except for the holdings you have dominated then he is paying you off... why check?

Against his typical drawing hands against you he has between 11-15 outs and against his made hands with a ten you are in a dominating position that will earn you 2 BB the great majority of the time.

Re: The turn paradox.
 

the case for checking:

1 - you lose much less when behind already
2 - you induce bluffs on the river when ahead
3 - he "may" have live outs against you, but the equity they represent is not huge, and gaining bets on river AND avoiding checkraises worth possibly more than his outs when behind in a current 3.75BB pot.

if you refute these, I can really look at it some more and give an in depth analysis - it's close. but by no means is betting turn standard, and my default play still has not been swayed - its a turn check.

Re: The turn paradox.
 

[ QUOTE ]
the case for checking:

1 - you lose much less when behind already
2 - you induce bluffs on the river when ahead
3 - he "may" have live outs against you, but the equity they represent is not huge, and gaining bets on river AND avoiding checkraises worth possibly more than his outs when behind in a current 3.75BB pot.

if you refute these, I can really look at it some more and give an in depth analysis - it's close. but by no means is betting turn standard, and my default play still has not been swayed - its a turn check.

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly agree with you about number 1. You will certainly lose less when you are behind. I also agree that checking can induce a bluff and that is a good thing as well. However, Im not sure I agree with number 3 here... I believe that his typical drawing hand has many outs against you.

If he has J-9 or q-j he has anywhere from 25-30% equity in the pot. If that is the case I believe then you have to bet. You can't afford to give him infinite odds to get there.

In addition, I think the most important thing to consider are the possible hands that he could hold which you have dominated and he is willing to pay you off with 2 BB's. I believe that these holdings are highly probably and I don't want to let him off only paying me off for one BB.

If you put him on a range of hands... based on his position and his preflop and flop play... I believe you can very accurately deduce a very narrow range of hands. All of which are hands that A-10 needs to bet the turn against.

I would estimate the range to be as follows:

Hands you are behind:
K-J,K-10-not likely-, K-9, 5-5

Hands you have dominated:

q-10,j-10,9-10,10-8

Hands with large draw:

j-9, Q-J

Other possible hands:
8-8,7-7

He could have these last 2 as well... but I wouldn't put him on these big of pp's up front. But they could be possible, but one is in bad shape and one has us in bad shape.

Occurances of hands behind:
34--- not including 7-7

Occurances of hands you dominate:

32-- not including 8-8

Occurances of hands with big draws:
32--

Based off of this (assuming I calculated the possiblities correctly, which Im not the best at) I figure you are ahead at least 2/3's of the time here in this spot. In actuality, you may be ahead here a greater majority then that just based off how the hand has been played so far.

1/3 of the time you are going to gain about 1.7 BB's from the times your opponent has a ten in his hand. (I have ignored the frequency of him calling with a ten and folding on the river unimproved.)

1/3 of the time you will gain .7 of a BB when he has a drawing hand... since he has between 25 and 30% equity. Assuming he wont call on the end unimproved... which is highly unlikely.

In the hands where you are ahead or dominating a bet on the turn will gain you and a bet on the end will gain you 1.2 BB. In the hands where you are behind, you will get c/r by the caller with k-10 all the times, which is a possible 6 occurances. You could also get c/r by k-j, but I would feel that would be remote. However, in all of these situations it would be prudent to fold as you are a big dog. In these situations, you will be losing 1 BB 1/6 of the time or about -.06 of a BB. In the other cases where the player calls down and wins you will lose 1.5 BB's (assuming you bet the end as well) based on our equity in those situations. For a total of -1.6 BB's 1/3 of the time.

In total I would calculate betting as a net gain of .8 BB's... ignoring the possibilities of him c/r us of the best hand with a bluff. With that possiblility... I would calculate a bet as at least a positive gain of .5 BB's.

Let me know what you think!! I could be way off base here, as I don't do this kind of analysis commonly since I am a very feel based player. Overall, I still think it is close whether you should bet or not. However, as the hand has been played to date and based on my reads, I think a bet is in order.

Re: The turn paradox.
 

[ QUOTE ]
if you refute these, I can really look at it some more and give an in depth analysis...

[/ QUOTE ]

BUMP

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 ]
Stox, Just to let you know I have received alot of flak for not raising my ATo vs unknown early limpers. I dont think this play is profitable and therefore I usually fold in this spot. However I think this situation is different. Judging by the stats of the limper, it does appear to me that hes too loose, and I would also guess from his aggression numbers that this type of person would raise preflop with a hand like AJ. So I think ATo plays very well against the hand range of this early limper so I would raise in this situation.

Re: The turn paradox.
 

I skimmed through the thread, and one thing that I didn't notice is that sometimes you get check-raise bluffed. not only isn't this a negligible factor, but against a lot of these players, it's extemely sigificant. if he decides to checkraise you with QJ or AJ or complete air, you're making much more than if you induced a bluff on the river.

I'm not saying that I'd bet the turn here, but it's something to consider in these situations. in this situation against this guy, I think it's closer to a bet. he's passive enough to check-call a weakish K and he's loose enough to pay off with a worse hand

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 ]


I think his postflop tendencies are critical here, as a tight player might fold the best hand on an unfavorable flop for him. he's a little early for my taste too. if he was on the button I could see it, but with 5 players to act after him he's usually not getting it headsup