Thanks.
We have a self-appointed sLAG with unknown likelihood of bluffing a missed draw on the river after we check behind on the turn. I think that likelihood is pretty damn high in the NL$400 6max games. Especially with the 9 paired and hero raising a lot pf.
If he has a draw: He's probably bluffing enough to make checking behind better than betting if he was going to fold to your turn bet, and you're going to fold to his river bet if he hits. These assumptions are way too extensive, so checking behind the turn is quite certainly not optimal against a draw. But allthough it's not optimal, it does not lose us that much against the draw either. You assume that he WILL call with a flush or straight draw if we bet, and if that's true I'm with you on betting, but drawing with one card to come oop on a paired board is not so cool, so why would he call really? (Also, if we're planning to fold or call to a cr affects what line is best against the draw, since we'll sometimes lose huge if we fold and fold the best hand, and sometimes win big if we call and catch him on a semi-bluff. This only goes to show the structure I use to describe the situation is imperfect though, since if we call, the big losses come when he has us beat.)
If villain has a worse made hand than ours: Since read on villain is he is not a calling station, checking behind on the turn is probably the best line when he has a weaker made hand than ours.(Is this were you disagree? Do you not agree that he's more likely to call a river bet after it's checked through or bet the river himself, than to call the turn?) Added beauty of him having less outs than usual since the board is paired.
When he has us beat: Well, that checking behind on the turn is our line of choice if he has us beat goes without saying. I think you seem to underestimate the possibility of him having a 9 btw. Why can't he have a 9? (A9 is obviously unlikely, but less dominated 9xs aren't?)
I'm not really buying the bet and reconsider if you're cr-ed line. If I bet the turn, I'm going to know before I bet what I do if he pushes over the top. And I don't like betting this turn and then folding to a raise from someone that I think will check-raise with a (semi-)bluff or worse made hand a not insignificant part of the time. Even if the fold after we got check-raised is the correct decision against his range of hands (so we should obviously fold once we get there), putting ourself in that situation in the first place was not smart imo.
You're saying that weather to call or fold to a check raise is just a matter of putting him on a hand range and deciding if we have equity enough against it. I agree. But you're also saying that this decision does not affect weather we should bet the turn in the first place, and that doesn't make sense to me.
Also:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar på:</font><hr />
In addition, by checking here, hands which WOULDNT call a bet, but are live (even the KQ example) have an "equity share" of the pot. The pot is 120 or so now, why give up 10% to a 4 outer? thats 3bbs. I dont know about you, but i want whats mine. if T8 folds to a bet, its still better to bet then give up 8 outs, or roughly 20%, or 20 dollars (5 bbs).
[/ QUOTE ] Not if T8 will bluff the river often enough to make up for the $20 lost, and I think it will.