[spydog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't like the idea of planning to bet-fold the turn HU against someone who plays weird. Against someone like this, why not check the turn? The pot is small, you have a good hand that wants to showdown and he will often bluff the river if you check the turn, but may fold a loser if you bet the turn yourself. In a 3.25BB pot I don't think it's harmful to give 2 overcards a free card if they will often bluff with them on the river. If the flop had contained 2 flush cards then I think you must bet this turn. If you don't think he will bluff a busted gutshot on the river, then betting the turn is OK also.

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually think the small size of the pot is a pretty good justification for betting, not checking, since if he does checkraise I'm pretty certain I won't have nearly enough odds to call down even though it will be a whacko move with a worse hand from time to time. Way more often that that it will be a monster. If the pot was somehow so big that I'd feel uncomfortable folding the turn then I could see the merits of a check there much better.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's interesting. When the pot is so small like this on the turn, I ask myself this question:

Is my opponent more likely to make a bluffing mistake or a calling mistake?

Against a calling station, the answer is obvious. He will make calling mistakes, so it's an easy bet.

Better opponents will probably make more bluffing mistakes in this situation than calling mistakes. So, I think about how I can make him make a bluffing mistake. By calling the flop and checking the turn it appears that you are on a gutshot. He is likely to bet a lot of rivers, thinking that you missed. Also, by checking the turn, you are giving him an opportunity to make a calling mistake with Ace or King high that he might have folded on the turn if he checks to you on the river.