[ML4L]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if it's a great card for villain to bluff c/r and we're not calling a c/r, why on earth are we betting?

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone who wants to bet the turn here:

1) doesn't understand poker very well,
2) didn't take time to think the situation through,
3) is making some poor assumptions, or
4) some combination of 1, 2, and 3

ML4L

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, serves me right for being so smug, but let me try to clarify my stance, because there ARE some reasonable assumptions that could make the turn a bet. I still like a check, and here's why:

Based on what OP said, I would imagine villain to be typical "non-thinking" overaggressive player. Not necessarily bad/stupid, but probably not thinking about things on the same level as OP and the people on this forum. Villain likely views OP as a tight player, given what has transpired so far.

I do think that it is important to note that I don't think that either player in this situation should view this spot as being analagous to a heads-up match. Regardless of what OP has held in the previous hands in which he has folded HU, it likely appears that OP is playing a strategy far different from a reasonable strategy in a heads-up match (i.e. it is statistically unlikely that OP would fold four consecutive times in position in a heads-up match).

Anyway, preflop, opener could hold any two. Once reraised, I think that it is reasonable to assume that he would put OP on a relatively strong hand, since to this point, he has not shown a willingness to resteal. Given that villain has folded to similar reraises, I think that we can narrow villain's holdings a bit here as well: pairs, paint, smaller connectors, maybe ragged aces.

Once the flop comes down and villain check-calls, I think that his range is heavy toward one pair hands, with some stuff like 98 mixed in. Again, at this point, he likely puts OP on a decent hand: a pocket pair, a jack, or AK/AQ/KQ. Villain has probably decided to peel with a hand that he thinks might be best or might have outs and reevaluate on the turn.

On the turn, the ace is unlikely to have helped villain; OP is still likely ahead. But, putting ourselves in villain's shoes, how are we going to react to a turn bet? We view our opponent as a tight player. We think that our opponent would definitely bet here with a set, probably bet his big ace, maybe bet KK/QQ/jack, probably not bet a hand like 99, and probably not bet a hand like KQ. Given this range, I think that villain, despite his looseness, is likely to release a lot of worse hands to a turn bet.

Regarding the chance of a bluff check-raise, I agree with cwl that the chance of a bluff check-raise here is relatively low. Again, given that a tight player has shown strength at every opportunity, it seems like an odd spot to run a bluff, particularly since very few hands picked up additional outs from the ace and since villain's hand range was moderately narrow to begin with. The only way that I could see a bluff check-raise here would be with a thought process along the lines of:

"Hmmm, our opponent seems tight. Probably doesn't want to play a big pot without a very strong hand here. Only really strong hands that he could hold here would be AA/JJ/AJ. I think that there is a good chance that he is getting greedy with a moderate made hand or that he is bluffing, since a hand with showdown value would probably check behind. I think that he'll lay down to a check-raise."

But, frankly, I think that line of thought is a little silly, particularly given how we've characterized villain to this point. So, I wouldn't be too worried about a bluff check-raise.

In any event, I think that, if OP bets the turn, he drags the pot immediately a really large chunk of the time. Which is fine; the pot is getting pretty big relative to the money left behind, and if you check, you pay off whenever villain does improve on the river. But, let's look at a turn check now...

Again, if we are villain and the turn gets checked through, I think that the hand range on which he puts OP changes significantly. He can effectively rule out a set or other big hand (I know that people check sets behind here in this game, but from a Bayesian standpoint, I don't think it's worth much weight here). It now looks like OP has KK/QQ/jack/pocket pair that is trying to get to showdown and/or is scared of the ace or perhaps a bluff that has decided to give up. If you are a typical, overaggressive player, what do you do with a lot of hands on the river here? What would you have done with those same hands on the turn? I think that some of the value of a turn check comes from inducing bluffs and/or thin value bets from hands that might have folded the turn if we continued representing a strong hand. Additionally, I think that there is some value in the fact that some hands that might have folded the turn to a bet will look OP up on the river out of curiosity after the check. If villain is not terrible, he might realize that OP was just exercising pot control on the turn and that he shouldn't pay off with 88. But, I think that in the back of the mind of a lot of players remains the idea that, "Why would this seemingly-straightforward player bet this river with middle pair if he could just take a free showdown? Maybe he is bluffing..." So, I think that you are likely going to get looked up more on the river than you would if you bet the turn.

Again, there are certainly circumstances where you want to bet the turn. If you intend to call a check-raise all-in and feel good about it or think that you can value bet the river if called on the turn, betting the turn might be best. And, as touched on above, in a true heads-up match, betting the turn might be correct. But, in this hand, we have to play the image that we've been given, and that image is tight. I think that, with a tight image, the best way to maximize value here against a seemingly-mediocre opponent is to check the turn.

Too tired to proofread, so point out any mistakes.

ML4L