[donger]

[ QUOTE ]
I have thought quite a bit about this hand and the more I do so the less I like bet fold whether the turn card is an A, a K, or a Q. There are tons of guys at 5/10 who are guaranteed to put a raise in at some point postflop when they are heads up after raising preflop, whether or not they were 3-bet preflop. Unless the opponent is the straightforward type who would only raise with a hand better than our JJ, then not going to the showdown with only one overcard on the board seems like a mistake.

The problem is that I think it is very possible that villain would raise this turn with any pocket pair, AT, or even an adopted gutshot or open-ended as well as with the hands that we beat. The risk of folding the best hand seems not to be worth the extra value we get by continuing to bet.

I think if we check the turn, it is very likely that we will get a turn bet out of him with worse hands to represent the overcard. If he does check behind, it is more likely that we get a river call from a hand that may not have called both the turn and river had we kept firing.

This of course all depends on the aggressiveness of our opponent which, of course and as in this example, we didn't know. That said, it seems to me like the best solution is:

1) Bet-fold against opponents with below average aggression
2) Check-call both streets against opponents with average to above average aggression
3) Bet and call down against very aggressive opponents

What do you guys think?

Can you explain where my conclusions are flawed?

Thanks,
Cartman

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't get the distinction between Nos. 2 and 3. I was expecting there to be an aggression threshold above which the best strategy switched from betting to checking. Why are you bet-calling against the really aggro guys? It seems like they would be the ones from whom a check would extract the max value (b/c they will bet-bet hands with no outs, etc)