[wdeadwyler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For those of you who are advocating calling and potting a non-spade turn, WHY?

If villain doesnt already have the flush than we want to get all the money in the middle as a likely 2-1 favorite. If he does have the flush, the turn being a brick means nothing to us. Why would anyone take that line here?

We take that with TP because if villain has pair+FD then he is a coinflip on flop. But we have top set here, if villain has pair+FD he is a 2-1 dog, so lets get our money in as a favorite. If villain has a flush, so be it, but leading and potting the turn will just get our money in as a bigger dog against villain's range than 3betting the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

there is an opportunity to make villain make a bigger mistake by potting the turn rather than the flop, usually he's not that big of a dog by calling with a spade, and it makes it easy for him to play his hand by reraising all in, and it's easy to get away from a spade turn. a spade could also kill the action from him if he does have a spade, giving me another chance to hit my fh.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think villains are going crazy to give us their money with pair+flush draw on turns. Would we rather get in as a 2-1 favoriate on the flop (or a 2-1 dog), or more likely fold out the pair+draw on turn and get in our money as a 4-1 dog? My vote is for the flop.

We have to balance the times where we are ahead by the times we are behind, and since we really arent sure in this case, lets just shove it in the middle with top set on the flop, which cannot be a -ev play in the long run (whereas shoving on the turn possbily could be).