KJs in SB vs. button raise. - Page 2

W. Deranged · #11 10-20-2005, 02:03 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You aren't getting odds to simply try to hit a card here, but the potential that villain might check behind or something like that makes this a fine peel.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you might be over-applying the concept from Nate's post. I think its important that we've seen villan check the turn in this spot when we peel, not hope he checks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definitely see your point. If villain will never check this is a bad peel.

The real lesson I get from the flop decision in this hand is that it is very bad to have to be playing this hand without initiative. Check-calling the flop here is almost certainly never better than very slightly +EV. Without the chance to win this hand unimproved this hand becomes nearly worthless once the flop comes.

W. Deranged · #12 10-20-2005, 02:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You aren't getting odds to simply try to hit a card here, but the potential that villain might check behind or something like that makes this a fine peel.

[/ QUOTE ]
Statement:
In a situation like this, where we need an overlay from villain checking the the river behind to peel on the turn, it can never be correct to check/call the river (UI).
True/false?

[/ QUOTE ]

My original comment applied to whether we should call on the flop, though the "Nate tha Great Concept" applies in both situations.

The answer to your question is basically "true." On the turn in such a situation where we'll hope villain will check behind, built into the plan is the fact that we DON'T have the correct odds to simply call down the turn and the river. The idea is, though, that we may be able to proceed past the turn without either: a) strict "drawing" odds to win by improving out hand; b) sufficient equity to merit down calling the turn and the river. The reason we may be able to is because we can add a small amount of equity to the equity we have from strictly drawing to improve our hand; that small amount of showdown equity is realized in those situations where villain checks the river behind.

A way to think of it is like this: On the turn our equity has two pieces, a "drawing" piece (d) and a "showdown unimproved" piece. We can further subdivide our "showdown" piece into two parts: a "villain bets river" (b) part and a "villain checks river" part. (c)

Usually these turn decisions are approached from two points of view. Either d is big enough that we can pay a bet to draw to improve and fold unimproved, or d + b + c is big enough that we can call on the turn and the river and showdown. The key point is that there are certain situations where our hand has moderate showdown value but not enough to call a river bet with. In some select situations, a call on the turn might be merited even though d is not big enough to call and hope to improve AND d + b + c isn't big enough to call down two bets. The call is merited because d + c is big enough to call and hope the river gets checked behind.

[Note: c is a function both of the strength of our hand and the likelihood villain checks behind; if villain is unlikely to check behind the river, c is a very small number.]

Nick Royale · #13 10-20-2005, 02:28 PM

Thanks, I like your posts.

Aces McGee · #14 10-20-2005, 03:02 PM

While a preflop 3-bet is preferable, it can be okay to call sometimes with the intention of taking the pot away on the flop if it bricks (though this is harder to do out of the SB unless you have a good read that the BB will fold).

I think I'd checkraise the flop a good portion of the time here.

-McGee

Fat Nicky · #15 10-20-2005, 03:07 PM

[ QUOTE ]
While a preflop 3-bet is preferable, it can be okay to call sometimes with the intention of taking the pot away on the flop if it bricks

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldnt' mind this if we were the BB, but as the SB I think a 3-bet is a must for the added incentive of eliminating the BB.

Aces McGee · #16 10-20-2005, 03:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldnt' mind this if we were the BB, but as the SB I think a 3-bet is a must for the added incentive of eliminating the BB.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep. I think I said that in my post (meant to, anyway). Having just called, though, and with the BB out, I'm still checkraising here a fair amount.

-McGee

W. Deranged · #17 10-20-2005, 04:17 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks, I like your posts.

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate it... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

TripleH68 · #18 10-20-2005, 05:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Party Poker 3/6 Hold'em (9 handed) converter

Preflop: Hero is SB with K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img].
6 folds, Button raises, Hero calls, 1 fold.

Flop: (5 SB) 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 7[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets, Hero calls.

Turn: (3.50 BB) J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets, Hero raises, Button 3-bets...

[/ QUOTE ]

Hero calls down. River was 6 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img].
Villain took pot with AJo.

Thanks for the solid advice.

#19 10-20-2005, 05:42 PM

not even a question in my mind what i do here. i call the turn 3-bet and lead out on the river.. if hes crazy enough to bluff you the whole way.. possibly wiht a middle pair such as 99 and he cant let it go then make him pay.

W. Deranged · #20 10-20-2005, 06:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
not even a question in my mind what i do here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really?

[ QUOTE ]
i call the turn 3-bet and lead out on the river.. if hes crazy enough to bluff you the whole way.. possibly wiht a middle pair such as 99 and he cant let it go then make him pay.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe there should be.

Betting the river and opening ourselves up to a raise is foolish. You aren't honestly advocating putting in TWO bets on the river here, are you. If villain checks the river behind with a worse hand, it's unfortunate, but we've already made him pay 3 big bets to get to a showdown.