Top set... pretty standard?

[AcesUp2121]

Turning Stone $100 Max $1/$2 Blinds

Been running well and the table probably views me as a solid TAG. Villain in the hand is the only player that covers me, hasn't been playing many hands, and hasn't gotten out of line. We have yet to get involved in any serious hands.

Stacks:
Hero ($525)
Villain ($750)

Preflop:
1 limper to me and I raise to $12, my standard raise, with Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] from MP. Villain calls and everyone else folds.

Flop ($29):
4 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

Flop doesn't look too dangerous, so I check, not wanting to lose my opponent. He bets $15, I call.

Turn ($59):
J [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

I check again, expecting another bet from the villain, with the intent of raising. He bets $30, I think and make it $100, he eventually folds.

I figured there's quite a few cards I don't want to see on the river, and from Villain's betting, I thought he liked his hand. Did I raise too much here? Any other suggested lines?

[imported_anacardo]

[ QUOTE ]
Turning Stone $100 Max $1/$2 Blinds

Been running well and the table probably views me as a solid TAG. Villain in the hand is the only player that covers me, hasn't been playing many hands, and hasn't gotten out of line. We have yet to get involved in any serious hands.

Stacks:
Hero ($525)
Villain ($750)

Preflop:
1 limper to me and I raise to $12, my standard raise, with Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] from MP. Villain calls and everyone else folds.

Flop ($29):
4 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 9 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

Flop doesn't look too dangerous, so I check, not wanting to lose my opponent. He bets $15, I call.

Turn ($59):
J [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

I check again, expecting another bet from the villain, with the intent of raising. He bets $30, I think and make it $100, he eventually folds.

I figured there's quite a few cards I don't want to see on the river, and from Villain's betting, I thought he liked his hand. Did I raise too much here? Any other suggested lines?

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks perfect. Probably got an extra $45 out of a hand that would have folded the flop.

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]
Any other suggested lines?

[/ QUOTE ]

bet the flop

[imported_anacardo]

You always seem to advocate erring on the side of pot-building with a monster hand, fim; while this seems a sound way to go, of course, do you never give any thought to extracting a little extra from rags, or letting Villain get an easy draw at a second-best hand? If not, why not?

[Larimani]

[ QUOTE ]
You always seem to advocate erring on the side of pot-building with a monster hand, fim; while this seems a sound way to go, of course, do you never give any thought to extracting a little extra from rags, or letting Villain get an easy draw at a second-best hand? If not, why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Seconded. This flop is a safe as it gets and if you don't give a free card here, where do you do?
Or do you think it's too suspicious to check this flop after having raised preflop and just gives away that you've hit a monster?

[MTBlue]

Here's the deal. With a Q9 x board quite a few of villains holding will fit this if you give a free card here and a K J T 8 comes you will stack off to an inside straight that wouldn't have called your bet on the flop or imo just as worse you let JT get free cards instead of paying for them. You also tip off an observant opponent who decided to just call a raise with KK that you have top set with the turn raise. I know it seems cute and profitable to check with top set, but everyone in the building knows what happened when you raise the turn. The other major problem is that once they figure out you check top set or other big hands it becomes open field day on your continuation bets. Thirdly it keeps the pot artificially small when the opponent is also trying to milk you underpair when he has an underset.

Here is the bright side to your play your opponent may hit a runner runner bottom full house or under set and you will stack him with a hand he never would have played but in general I think you lose more value than you gain especially oop. An observant opponent will see through your cute little facade and you will lose big pots and win small wons.

[Larimani]

This is the most insightful post I've read for some time. Thanks.

Edit: I must be spending too much time in OOT [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[xorbie]

Essentially what you gain with your line is money from bad hands that won't call. What you lose is the ability to take villains stack unless he has a monster (which could easily have you beat), not to mention that if villain checks behind on this turn you could be left with a very very ugly river decision (river [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] and he raises, or a T, K or 8).

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]
You always seem to advocate erring on the side of pot-building with a monster hand, fim; while this seems a sound way to go, of course, do you never give any thought to extracting a little extra from rags, or letting Villain get an easy draw at a second-best hand? If not, why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a good question

consider this:

as a good player, you should be more "active" than other players, that means you bet and fold more and check and call less. this is the style that wins money.

if you have an opponent who is so painfully stupid that a preflop raise means nothing (like he's calling with J5s and going to the river with a pair) then by all means check. in most cases however, it is best just to bet. let's look at why:

1. there was a response by another poster why this board is good to bet on due to the fact that there are lots of hands drawing live. that is a good analysis. I will provide below another reason.

2. if you asked me how to win at NL poker when i first started, i would say "play better cards than they do" and that would have been right for me then. i was playing small games, the players were bad and i was a little better than them, so i won. then i got a little better and would probably answer the same question with "play properly" and that worked for the ~100NL level where making the "right" plays got me paid. this answer is backwards compatable with the previous, but the previous is not forwards compatable; this is a sign i improved as a poker player.

now if asked the same question, my answer would be "leave them no option but to lose." in this i mean a full integration of game where there are no angles to exploit and no sure +EV moves that can be made in algorithmic fashion against me. a quick example might help elucidate what i'm saying. If you call my preflop raises with small PP's hoping to stack me with a set, you will lose money long term, even if i give you all 100BB's every time i have TPTK or an overpair simply because i raise far more hands than those that simply make the above hands. most often i am raising not because of a pot equity edge, but to isolate you when i have position and feel you are a weak player. that means that often you will get to see a flop against my aces for 3BB's, but you'll also get blown off a lot of best hands when i'm raising a SC. this leaves you with a conundrum: now you must play back with marginal hands like 88 in order to get full value for them, but if you let me blow you off your hand every time you dont make a set or overpair, you will still lose lots of money. bottom line, you will often be playing raised pots, out of position, and i will have more information on your hand than you have on mine, therefore, unless you fight back quite well, you will inevitably lose.

how this applies to this hand is the following:

in being more active, you will win a lot of small and medium pots without showdown. however, even bad players get good hands and even bad players will take a stand when they feel they are being bullied or have the worst of it. what you must be doing is setting a rubric by which they must play such that they cannot win, namely they will give you the pot more than 50% of the time on the flop, and when they do make a big hand they will be unlikely to get paid. however, sometimes they will make a good hand and will decide to take a stand, and those times must look exactly like all the other times you had nothing. by betting your set here you gain fold equity for all your non-sets and plant the mine should he think it's time to play back hard with his 88. it can be thought of like a whack-a-mole game: you present many moles, most of which he'll miss, so you make money. every so often he'll hit a mole, and that mole will be beaten and withdraw. but once in a while, he'll hit that mole and it will hit back hard. if that mole looks any different than the other moles, he'll just avoid it and keep picking you off, but if he can't tell the difference he will revert to loose, passive play and be gunshy (and people tend to be). he'll be cautious and not play back at you without the goods- even then he'll be behind sometimes and you'll still win most of the really big pots. This is what you want: a game rhythm and strategy that leaves him no option but to lose money long term.

So, when you're unsure what to do headup, with either a big hand or a small hand, you can hardly go far from optimal by betting it.

fim

[AcesUp2121]

Villain claimed afterward to have flopped top 2, which is a rather surprising holding for me to put him on. So, I guess the check/raise on the turn was a dead giveaway, and I would have been better off leading the flop in this case.