Nuts on the turn

[haakee]

Very loose Northern California 20-40 game. My image is tight, but I'm stuck two racks. I get dealt A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] UTG and decide to raise. Extremely loose EMP cold-calls. He'll cold call about 50% of the time here. Reasonable player 3-bets in LMP. He's tightish, but I don't know much about his postflop play. Others fold (wow). EMP and I call and it's 3 to the flop for 10.5 sb.

Flop: A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] K [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. I bet out. Both players call. 3 players to the turn for 6.75 bb.

Turn: 8 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]. Your move?

[Steve Giufre]

I think a case can be made for betting, check calling the turn and leading at the river, checking the turn with the intension of raising, or check calling the turn with the intension of checkraising the river. I think it depends on your image and whether or not you have someone in late posiion who will always bet a spade on the end if checked to him on the river. I'm not sure you can go wrong here, I would probably just lead at it, although if you do check, it's not a tragedy if it gets checked behind, because you might get paid off by a non flush hand on the river that wuoldnt have called on the turn had you bet.

[CrackerZack]

I'd bet. especially if it was Tom Vu you were facing.

[PanchoVilla]

This is a clear fold. It's well known that you have a severe case of tommyangeloitis. In this situation it should be obvious that the river will be the 5 of spades and you will lose about 6 more bets to the the EMP player who is in there with 6-4 of spades and then tilt away 3 more racks. You should just fold and go home now...........

Pancho

PS I too like the check(raise if you can) and then lead at the river move. In the GC 20-40 you know that one of those two is required by law to bet.......

[elysium]

hi haakee
good post, good post. you know, i go for the check-raise here. you're not up against two pair or set, and your opponents can't draw out on you. the main issue is whether or not you played the flop correctly.

it would seem to me to be better to check-call. this is counter-intuitive, but what isn't about this hand. this is the most counter intuitive situation in all of hold em. mason is an expert in this area by the way.

i'm a little nuerotic in this area myself. together, mason and i bring clarity onto the scene here a little.

for me, things are going like this...(i'm making wavies with my fingers and batting my eyes)...; when things go like this, i allow some other player to graciously assume the responsibilty as hand leader. this enhances my check-raising ability on the turn. you won't be check-raising the river under any possible scenario known in the hold em universe. the check-raise opportunity vaporizes on the river. however, on the turn, your opportunity to check-raising liklihood goes way up, even though this is not a check-raising type hand in any circumstances except this one.

this hold em situation also makes representing the nuts beneficial; it seems to beg for a leader. and ironically as you care to imagine, the player who is actually on the nut draw should defer his leadership role and instead try to induce uncontrolled raising, which is likely to happen as the opponent who is representing the nuts furthers his case.

on the turn, even if you don't improve, raising or check-raising is often correct, especially, and get this, when the flop is checked around. actually, what you should be going for, rooting for, is a flop check-around! another reason for checking.

believe it or not, checking is far and away the highest ev. play that you can make on the flop. this is true no matter what position you are in. and you really don't have a solid feel where you are or what to do, unless you do check when it would seem like betting is the obvious choice.

haakee, everything i'm posting here doesn't make any sense because on the surface, how this hand should be played doesn't make any sense. it's totally above the sub-genius level of thought required to fathom this hand's intricacies. you played it fine. will you ever check this down on the flop from the button? no. never. but haakee, that's what you should do in this spot, believe it or not. and yes, you should also check and call from first or MP. yes, you actually want a flop check around for value, believe it or not.

with a set or two pair, you would represent the nut draw or completed nut flush.

if you're thinking that betting from first is correct because of your lack of info; in other words, that you might be up against a set or two pair, and you want to make them pay to draw out on you, (in cases of your flopping the flush) well, that argument has merit. but remember, your bet will never fold out on the flop anyway, and you may not want that. also, because of the unique dynamics of this hand, uncontrolled aggression on the turn against your nut hand is a strong possibility. sure, the set or two pair could draw out and normally you want to make them pay to do so. but i think that the extra bets should be picked up on the expensive round. and we're talking here about those times you flop a flush.

if this situation was only slightly different, then betting to get the money in the pot and tieing your opponents to the pot would be correct. but haakee, chekcing actually does more to tie your opponents to the pot, especially when the flop gets checked around! believe it or not.

[Garland]

haakee,

Personally, I would bet out here. Why?
1. It's unlikely, but someone might have slowplayed a set or two pair. They have draws.
2. A lesser spade like J [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] or 10 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] may be willing to pay you off twice, but not initiate the betting.
3. Loose players will pay off with a lot of things in spite of the fact that things look bleak for them.

When in doubt, bet it out. Only if you've seen the entire table fold on a scare turn card regularily would I consider a check here.

Garland

[Nate tha' Great]

I'd bet out.

The problem is that the loose passive player, and not the (tight) aggressive player is the first to act after you. I want to bet out to ensure that loosey puts exactly one bet in, since I don't know that I can rely on him to bet if checked to.

The more aggressive player is a better candidate to bet out, but:

a) If it's checked to him and you get in a check-raise, you *may* get an extra bet from him but might cost yourself a bet from EMP.
b) LMP might be smart enough to take the free card if he has something like AK or even a set, and was hoping for a non-spade to come off on the turn.
c) Some of the time that you bet, he's going to raise anyway with say the J [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], which allows you to collect two bets from him as well as at least 1 bet from EMP.

[pokerraja]

I think both plays are good. If you check on turn (show weakness) you can almost guarentee one of the them will bet (either bluffing or they have a flush). When you re-raise them they will raise you back thinking that you are putting a move on them! So SO nice. This is how most of my 10-20 games are online at PP. I love it! [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[Ulysses]

yes, you actually want a flop check around for value, believe it or not.

Sheer brilliance.

[Nightwish]

[ QUOTE ]
Very loose Northern California 20-40 game.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's redundant.

Bet the turn and pray that they each have a spade.