What do you think of this Turn semi-bluff? - Page 2

Nfinity · #11 10-31-2005, 02:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You're getting 4:1 on the check-raise.

I don't mind this against the right player, but I would usually have check-raised the flop and led the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

The flop CR is situational in this situation I would check, and had BB come along, called. Seeing him drop out makes the Check-raise/ Lead the Turn a good play.

If BB ended up seeing the Turn A in this situation it could us in a hairy situation. We don't want to possibly allow BB to make us face 2 cold, especially if he is willing to bluff-raise it and force us to discount outs that we don't have to. Of course if he drops to MP's bet then we open up a new opportunity for a semi-bluff.

Hmmm...Thoughts?

Shillx · #12 10-31-2005, 02:03 PM

This will never work against thinking players. Let's just say that you had AJs instead of KJs. You just lose more money when he has AK or AQ and you risk folding out kings down. So this play makes no sense when you hold an ace (and not AK), so why would you make it when you don't hold an ace?

And you are not getting 8:1 here. You are getting much worse odds. Three.five to one to be exact.

aces_dad · #13 10-31-2005, 02:14 PM

It looks like you rounded up the 11SB's on the flop to 6 on the turn. Given the rake requirement it would be more accurate to call the pot 5BB's on the turn.

bozlax · #14 10-31-2005, 02:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The flop CR is situational in this situation I would check, and had BB come along, called. Seeing him drop out makes the Check-raise/ Lead the Turn a good play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this backwards? If BB stays in, you have a value raise with your flush draw and overcards. If he goes you can't value raise, so it's just a semi-bluff. (I think that it's only a good semi-bluff against a player that might be able to lay down, for instance, a middle PP when bet into on the turn, though.)

Nfinity · #15 10-31-2005, 02:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The flop CR is situational in this situation I would check, and had BB come along, called. Seeing him drop out makes the Check-raise/ Lead the Turn a good play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't this backwards? If BB stays in, you have a value raise with your flush draw and overcards. If he goes you can't value raise, so it's just a semi-bluff. (I think that it's only a good semi-bluff against a player that might be able to lay down, for instance, a middle PP when bet into on the turn, though.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's so much value raise 3-way when we are likely behind OOP and some of our outs could be counterfeited. This CR will force us to put a lot more money in vs. a thinking player while behind, cuts down our implied odds when we hit, and makes the pot odds tempting for him to see a showdown.

#16 10-31-2005, 03:37 PM

grunching

I think you have this backwards. You would rarely fold someone with a checkraise. The only reason you'd check-raise is for value you, if you believe that you have the better hand. Since the villain TAG 3-bet pre-flop, his range may be AA-QQ (JJ?) or AK (suited or not). You're behind most of these. IMO, if you want to bluff, then just bet right out. Then, you can call the raise, because you're still getting good odds on the draw. Even if he has something like KK or QQ, I don't think you're folding him here often enough for it to be profitable. Just check/call and see the river.

kapw7 · #17 10-31-2005, 03:59 PM

I like it. If you never (semi)bluff then you simply become weak-tight and you get no action at least from competent players. This is a good spot to try it.

However for this hand, my standard play is to check-raise the flop and then lead any non flush turn card. This way I can steal the pot with most of turn cards.

Stealthy · #18 10-31-2005, 04:15 PM

I just do not think you have any real fold equity here against 99% of low limit players. You are FAR more likely to get 3 bet here than find a fold. Don't take too much notice of "TAG" stats, whilst it means that he might fold where a 50/6/1 certainly will not, he is still likely to want to show down his hand for 2 more bets rather than fold to a check-raise. I see a lot of players with decent looking stats play pretty bad and hold onto far worse hands than a high PP when played back at in this way.

I might lay down a hand like QQ here to a check-raise but only if done so by a normally passive player.

#19 10-31-2005, 05:15 PM

Also, worst case scenario is getting 3-bet and drawing dead to AQs. Not that it's likely, but it would suck bad to make the 2nd best flush with a lot of turn & river action.

Aaron W. · #20 10-31-2005, 06:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming that hand range, say he 3 bets with AA 100% of the time and with AK 2/3 of the time. That's 9/27 or 33% of the time. My bluff then costs 1.33 BB. Getting 8:1.33, he needs to fold about 15% of the time. He holds KK, QQ, or JJ 44% of the time. So he needs to fold one of those 1/3 times. It *might* be +EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know why you would think AK is only going to 3-bet you 2/3 of the time. Your play looks as if you are at best tied with him, but probably losing. I can see an argumnet for AQs not 3-betting. Your semi-bluff is really quite thin unless you know villain is capable of folding hands.