Checking Behind Turns Versus TAGs

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
Just an extra thought on this situation.

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.

Seems ballsy, but I don't think it's that risky when you are way ahead/way behind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this line.

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty much, but my line also stipulates heavily on them being a reasonable TAG. You can still fold to the turn CR above imo. That's worth noting as well.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, that's fine. But the argument is that we should not bet since we plan to do this. This is separate issue, and I actually agree with you. But because I agree with you, and after all the analysis, I am convinced that checking behind is better here.

[Guruman]

I think that checking the turn is a mistake for a few reasons:

1)free card-the fact that he raised pre-flop screams overcard(s) the only question is which ones. If he had overs with no Q then you are ahead and do not want to give him a free shot at counterfeiting your pair. TAG or not, bet the turn to protect against the overcards.

2)value bet-If you are ahead, you're also losing money by not extracting bets on the turn.

3)information-Your turn bet has very specific possible consequences:
villain folds drawing hand or overcards,
villain calls overcards (still behind you),
villain calls overpairs or a Q (ahead but not sure of himself),
villain re-raises trips, a boat, a Q or overpairs (this is the info you're looking for)
villain re-raises as a bluff

I think he gave you all of the info you needed on the turn, but you would have never found out without the bet. This is an easy value/protection/information bet to me. A re-raise scares the hell out of me, but I have to admit that I'd have a hard time putting him on that six given his pre-flop play.

Overall, hell of a good hand by the villain post-flop - though I think he got pretty lucky when the first three cards came. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Guruman]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, I challenge anyone to come up with a line that loses more chips than mine.


[/ QUOTE ]

same line, only three-bet the turn and call a cap. That'll lose you an extra BB when he bets the river and you're tied to the pot. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Elizabeth]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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....

[/ QUOTE ]

It comes into play in comparing the EV in checking to the EV of betting. The Percentage the the other player will bluff is lowering your equity in the pot as it increases from zero to the optimal bluffing frequency, but only when you bet.

If he bluffs too much, then you are correct to call and further bluffs increase the EV of betting.

Whether or not the opponent will bluff raise infrequently enough so that hero can fold, and exactly how much this drops the EV of betting are calculations that you could make after making some reasonable assumptions about the range of hands and bluffing frequency.