[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand wanting to charge SB for his flush draw - but still - you should not be raising the turn if you don't think you have MP beat >50% of the time, right? If you do think you have him beat more often than not, then the river's an easy bet, right? I don't really understand the free showdown play here unless you're pretty sure MP also has a flush draw and I don't see why you'd think that.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my opinion this is misguided.

We raise the turn as a way to get to showdown and as the last two bet's we're probably going to put in this pot.

Our raise is not inconsistent with a river check because our turn raise is:

1. Primarily a way to get to showdown.

2. Aimed at generating value against hands that will put in money on the turn but not the river, such as big [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]s.

3. Has tactical value in pressuring SB (if he has an A, a medium spade, a pair with outs to beat us, etc.) that a river bet doesn't.

4. Has the possibility of getting the turn bettor to fold a better hand, but if he calls the turn he's much more likely also to call the river if he has a hand we're beating so that factor decreases in value.

I'm really surprised at this line of reasoning. Raising can be done for some many other reasons that immediate equity edges. I think it is fine to argue that our hero does in fact have a 55% edge here and hence should bet the river, but claiming that a river bet is a natural logical consequence of a turn raise is quite misguided in my opinion.