AQ against known aggressor

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe this is wrong of me, but I don't always bet the turn here, especially if I suspect my opponent has been stealing pots from me frequently. It's a case where he'll likely fold if he only called the flop to see if he'd be able to steal the pot later, but call or raise if he really has a hand (which probably beats yours). If you check here you'll win more when you're way ahead (he bluffs the river) and you'll lose less when you're behind.

It's true a free card may cost you the pot, but against a player that will call the flop with anything or nothing just to see if you'll bet again on the turn, you will not be up against a flush draw very often and the flush card usually will not come on the river. So the chances of a spade coming on the river AND your opponent having spades is unlikely. Similarly, against a small pocket pair the free card will cost you the pot less than one time in twenty. The value you gain each time these busted hands bluff the river (as well as the value of saving money when you're already behind) should far exceed the cost of the times they suck out.

However this play is not something I see advocated often so it's possible that I have not analyzed everything correctly. If my advice is flawed I hope someone will explain why.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%

I've mentioned this in another post yesterday.

In addition you may get a value-ish blocker fro ma top pair lower kicker type hand.

But sometimes you should bet the turn, as well. Especially vs people who love to go broke with LESS than top pair.

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]
Soah, I think a check behind is more readily advocated on ragged boards. A bet on draw-heavy boards both charges draws (which they may very well have), earns a free card on the river (if you prefer to avoid an expensive river bet - which could very well be a steal - with a hand as weak as top pair), and lets you know where you're at better than any other street. It's also less preferable at 25NL-100NL, as people will often call you down with draws or hands that beat you, as opposed to higher limits where you could get yourself into some trouble against skilled opponents.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, you have it backwards. You really do NOT want to check behind on a drawless board, because if you get C/Red then, conventional thinking (Unless they are insanely good or crafty and will turn check raise bluff) says there is no way top pair can be good.

On a draw-ful board they "could" be check raising a few more hands, plus, they will actually have a busted draw to bluff with o nthe river.

Against smart players I've stopped bluffing when this situation occurs just because it's so easy to recognize. Contrary, on a drawless board, it's easy to bluff on, because they wonder what you could be betting or calling with. They have to be smart though, which isn't most.

[soah]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a check behind is more readily advocated on ragged boards. A bet on draw-heavy boards both charges draws (which they may very well have), earns a free card on the river (if you prefer to avoid an expensive river bet - which could very well be a steal - with a hand as weak as top pair), and lets you know where you're at better than any other street.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's assume your opponent has a draw. If you bet pot-size on the turn it would clearly be +EV for you if he calls and if no money goes in on the river. You WANT him to make a bad call here, but in reality it doesn't happen much except against truly horrible opponents.

Let's further assume that these overly aggressive players will bet the river no matter what if you show weakness by checking behind on the turn.

So in either scenario, one pot-size bet goes in the pot regardless of the river card. Which street the bet is made on is irrelevent from an EV standpoint. If x is the pot size, then the EV of making your opponent fold on the turn is x. If you check the turn and your opponent bets x on the river every single time, then about 4/5 of the time you win 2x (the existing pot plus opponent's bet) and 1/5 of the time you win -x (you lose the money which you called with). Your total EV from this line is (.8 * 2x) + (.2 * -x) which equals 1.4x. In this scenario, the value of inducing river bluffs is much greater than the cost of giving the free card and paying off.

If you read my post again you will also see that what I actually wrote was that I "don't always bet the turn here" rather than suggesting it as a definate answer. You must be certain that your opponent will bluff you frequently enough to make the play worthwhile. From what was written in the original post, I believed that this may be the case. Of course, this is all assuming that the guy had a flush draw, when a smaller pair seemed quite likely as well. Those hands have fewer outs, are also likely to fold to a big turn bet, but may bet or check/call the river.

And finally there's the possibility you are already beaten. Unless my opponent is stupid, I'm not happy getting a 75x stack all-in against them with TPTK. By keeping the pot smaller you are more likely to be saving money on a loser than to be losing potential value with a winner.

So there are many different things you must balance in order to come up with the total equity for betting the turn vs checking. Saving money when behind + inducing extra action when you're ahead vs losing the pot via a free card.

PS. There are also some meta-game considerations if snapping off a bluff here may prevent your opponent(s) from stealing some pots from you later in the session when you have a much weaker holding, such as second or third pair.

(Note that the forums went down while I was trying to post this, and several more people were able to post replies after I gave up and left to do other things for a while.)

[holdemfan]

Okay guys I need clarification on what you are saying.
I have Top pair, back door nut flush but one more spade could cause someone to hit their flush and me miss mine. Villain could have AK AJ and I need to take this pot down before he gets his card. In fact he did't have the hand until the turn and my flop bet should have pushed him out causing me to win. If he didn't hit his T on the turn my bet would have caused him to fold or to make me a lot of money. Are you saying that I should of just checked the Turn and give him a free card to make his hand? I didn't need a free card I felt I was ahead.

[BK_]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe this is wrong of me, but I don't always bet the turn here, especially if I suspect my opponent has been stealing pots from me frequently. It's a case where he'll likely fold if he only called the flop to see if he'd be able to steal the pot later, but call or raise if he really has a hand (which probably beats yours). If you check here you'll win more when you're way ahead (he bluffs the river) and you'll lose less when you're behind.


[/ QUOTE ]

yep. i like checking the turn here. here are the things i consider:

1. if you check the turn, you eliminate getting pushed off your hand vs a smart aggressive player
2. if you check the turn you increase equity by inducing his bluff on the river. your hand looks alot like a failed flop auto bet.
3. if you check the turn you get more value out of a mediocre hand. This is because a turn bet by you looks pretty strong, but you look alot weaker if you check behind the turn and bet the river.
4. checking the turn allows you to control the pot size. you hate playing a really big pot with top pair. if you bet the turn, you are playing a bit pot whether he flat calls you or raises you.
5. these advantages outweigh the disadvantages of giving him a free card. the disadvantages of giving a free card in this situation are even lower than normal, since you have position on the river and can choose to just flat call his river bet.

[TrailofTears]

I actually haven't seen it yet, but I hope to remedy that soon. Did I coincidentally reference it in my last post? I'll keep that in mind when I go see it.

[mythrilfox]

Ok ok, I concede.