Checking Behind Turns Versus TAGs

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]

If you plan on betting the turn and calling down if raised then consider 3-betting the turn and checking behind on the river (or folding to a cap). Crazy? Well, if you suspect villian is on a bluff he will likely fold to your 3-bet, thus relinquishing his 2-6 outs. If he has a legitimate hand then you will lose the same by calling down as you will by 3-betting/checking behind on the river. Plus, you might fold JJ or a weak queen (QTs, QJs, KQ) if he can make a tough laydown. Plus, you might spike a T on the river and get an extra bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

very nice. other level thinking --- i like this alot.

[chesspain]

Calling the river here is bad. Folding is best, with raising as a distant second in an attempt to have him drop hands like KQ, KK, JJ.

[chief444]

I'd have to question not just if your opponent likes to check/raise semibluff turns a lot but more importantly if he would check/raise with a Q. If he's holding AQ,KQ, or QJ he's probably showing down and he doesn't really gain anything with the check/raise since only worse hands with two outs fold. That doesn't mean this particular opponent thinks that way. But I'd be tempted to 3-bet and fold to either a cap or river bet.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
In general, should it be standard practice to check behind versus TAGgy players who like to c/r?

[/ QUOTE ]

Checking the turn in this hand would be awful, simply awful. You simply can't give hands like AK or AJ a free card here.

If opponent is a TAG who only C/R's with top pair or better than this is an easy fold. If he is tricky and you think he may be trying to push you off the best hand then I call down UNLESS an Ace hits. Calling the river here is just dreadful IMO. There are pretty much no reasonable holdings for villain that you beat.

[Elizabeth]

[ QUOTE ]
My last reply may have been confusing. But I think:

EVcheck = (pot)*(our equity in pot)*(his bluff raise percent)

If he's bluffing 30% of the 76% of the time he doesn't have a Q, his bluff raise percent is .228, so we'd have:

5*.65*.228= .74

which seems quite a bit larger than EVbet. Am I missing anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

Something is wrong -- the value of checking cannot be dependent on his bluff frequency because he's not getting a chance to bluff raise you.

For each card that falls on the river, and the outcome is the same in the case that he bluffs 50% of the time versus the case where he bluffs 100% of the time. The EVs cannot be different.

Plus you should note that for a player who never bluffs, your equation gives an EV of 0 for checking.

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]

Something is wrong -- the value of checking cannot be dependent on his bluff frequency because he's not getting a chance to bluff raise you.

[/ QUOTE ]

elizabeth,

you are right. but something is also wrong that this chance is NOT being factored into anyone else's calculations. the decision of wheather or not to check behind clearly must be based on this. 3-betting can also come into play.

i still cannot figure out the proper way to analyze this. i'll keep trying....

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]

Checking the turn in this hand would be awful, simply awful. You simply can't give hands like AK or AJ a free card here.

[/ QUOTE ]

why?

please offer some analysis to back this up. i'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but if he is c/raising with a proper frequency, i don't think it would be awful at all. and i still think against certain opponents it is better.

i feel like there is general tendency on the forum -- and again, i could be wrong, which is why i want some more anlysis -- to overestimate the damage of giving a free card to a tricky opponent. it seems the general philosophy is that nothing is worse than giving a free card, and i'm just not convinced this is true.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
Checking the turn in this hand would be awful, simply awful. You simply can't give hands like AK or AJ a free card here.
[ QUOTE ]
why?

please offer some analysis to back this up. i'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but if he is c/raising with a proper frequency, i don't think it would be awful at all. and i still think against certain opponents it is better.

i feel like there is general tendency on the forum -- and again, i could be wrong, which is why i want some more anlysis -- to overestimate the damage of giving a free card to a tricky opponent. it seems the general philosophy is that nothing is worse than giving a free card, and i'm just not convinced this is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought I did give the general reason -- a free card is very dangerous here. This is not a way ahead or way behind situation. Your opponent may very well have 6 clean outs against you. Giving him a free card as opposed to, IIRC, around 6:1 odds to call your turn bet is very bad. Although I don't have my copy at work with me, I am pretty sure that betting the turn when you have few outs to improve and are susceptible to overcards (which you very much are here) is straight out of HPFAP. Against most opponents you could fold to a checkraise. Since there is no draw, it would be a very aggressive move to C/R the turn with just overcards. You won't see that too often at this level but if you think you are against that opponent by all means call down. But most times you can safely fold a hand you would only infrequently draw out on with at the river to win had you in fact taken the free card. Far worse IMO is giving overcards a free look at the river.

[ QUOTE ]
it seems the general philosophy is that nothing is worse than giving a free card, and i'm just not convinced this is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are times that it is OK to give a free card. Not too long ago I posted a hand where I checked the turn with pocket Jacks on a board of KKAx. In that hand the overcards I was worried about were already outh there and I figured a free card was more likely to help me than my opponent. Sthief09 still said I was too weak but I believed (and some others agreed) that this was correct. In this hand, where you are ahead a good amount of the time but very vulnerable, I think a free card is bad.

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]

you are right. but something is also wrong that this chance is NOT being factored into anyone else's calculations. the decision of wheather or not to check behind clearly must be based on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. I think I got it. It should be factored into EVbet. Brad's original formula had (for an oppo who folds 20%, calls 40%, and raises 40%):

EVbet = .2*.65 + .4*.74 - .4 = .026

The final term is incorrect, as it should include the pot equity we lose those times we are being bluff-raised. Again, putting our oppo on:

TT-99, AKs-ATs, KQs-KJs, AKo-AJo, KQo.

His prior chance for having a Q is (12+3)/58, about 26%. This means that if he bluffing 40% of the time, 14% of those must be bluffs. Now, when he does not have a Q, we have 85% pot equity, which comes to 5*.85=4.25. So we can now rewrite:


EVbet = .2*.65 + .4*.74 - .4(1 + 4.25*.14) = -.21

And this is for a fairly low bluff percentage. It will only get worse if he bluffs more.

On the other hand, by checking behind your EV is simply your equity of the current pot, which is about 65%, a positive number. Of course, you will also lose 1 more BB about 12% of the time (when he hits 1 of 6 outs), but that should be compensated for by the times you induce a bluff, and even if it isn't, checking is still clearly better than betting.

Against an opponent who bluffs here a decent percent of the time, though, 3-betting is probably the best play.

I'd really appreciate further comments on the above, to make sure I didn't make a mistake

Thanks,
gm

[BigEndian]

Against a reasonable opponent, I lay this down to the CR on the turn. What hand do you put him on when he CRs you? What % of the time do you think it's a hand you beat against the 2BB to the pot to call down?

I bet the turn pretty much 100% of the time though.

- Jim