[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I think this is an underrated concept.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's not underrated at all,

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it may be underrated by me, when I'm at the table. In blind-steal situations, I think I bet-fold the turn sometimes when I'd be better off checking behind, with the plan of showing down ace-high.

I'm still working on adjusting to aggressive blind defenders.

[ QUOTE ]
but on a 456A two club board when your opponent almost certainly has 6 outs if he's behind you'd much rather take the pot down now than check intending to call a river bet. If he bluffs the river 100% of the time, you're still better off betting because of the 3-way factor.

Even HU you would rather bet this turn than check and call the river UI, even if he would bluff 100% of the time. You lose a 7.2BB pot 13% of the time and win 1BB 87% of the time, for a net loss of about .06BB by checking.

There are other factors as well, like how often you'll get bluff checkraised here, and how often you'll forgo your 4.3% equity in the pot when he does have an A and checkraises you, but these combined -- in a pot this large -- don't make it worth checking.

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I like this analysis. And I'd really rather hear why I should bet the turn in the posted hand than why I should check, since, like I said, I did it almost automatically. I paused long enough to think of a couple of hands for MP1 I might want to bet against (KQ and JJ are the ones I came up with, during the heat of the hand), figured that was enough, and hit the bet button.

In retrospect, I think the 16 combos of KQ should be discounted at least a little after the flop call, but then 88 is another hand I'd like to bet against. And if by some chance MP1 has 99 and has now given up on it, I'd prefer betting against that hand too over giving infinite odds.