[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a point of interest, a lot of times the LAG has a made hand here as well (such as top pair) which has 2 outs. Which isn't bluffing the river. Although he may value bet. (And I dont really see how you could raise the river w/ unimproved aces..) So by checking the turn you're letting those portion of his hands off the hook.

[ QUOTE ]

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.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not assuming anything, I'm saying whether he calls raises or folds thats fine, it's just checking is not giving him the option to make a mistake (call or raise)

It's like in limit holdem, where a bet is correct even if you can't bet enough, only because lack of a bet is incorrect. checking this turn vs a huge portion of his hands is just not right.

Also, about not paying off the draw, you should be calling 100% of rivers; even if top pair pairs, he may be bluffing flush. or busted straight. or if straight fills, he may be betting top pair, or if the flush, he could be using that for a busted gut + overs. something like that. point is, by checking not only do you give up a portion of the pot, but you pay off their value bet. because yo uassume they will bluff alot. that is also a bad assumption, just because they are "sLag" they will bluff everytime they DONT hit.

BTW, although this seems contrary to what I say alot to othe rpeople, ("make a plan for the hand on the flop and on") in this situation you dont have a plan for whether to call if he pushes all in. most of the time a call is correct and I'll probably always make it, given game conditions, the board, and hte pot size, so i guess yes, the plan is bet/call, but you should be betting here because it's the right move, and not afraid of folding if you feel thats the right move if they push.

[ QUOTE ]


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.

[/ QUOTE ]

No!!!!!! A sLag wont drop top pair to a 2nd barrelL! This was my point! hands that have 5% equity... you want them in!!!!!!!! bet bet bet, have them call, then buy dinner w/ their money.

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

refer to above

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

technically yes, i've made the decision to call when i bet (if they raise) because the bet is correct vs his hand range. the only times its NOT a call is if a bet is right vs their hand range (all the draws, pps, top pair, etc.) but when they raise, you can use this NEWLY GIVEN INFORMATION and ascertain a fold vs their NEW range (ie, only trips or full house)

[ QUOTE ]
Also:

Svar på:
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).

Not if T8 will bluff the river often enough to make up for the $20 lost, and I think it will.

[/ QUOTE ]

k