Playing my aces

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
why raise the turn rather then the river?

[/ QUOTE ]

they don't deal an ocean on party

and

the opponents liklihood of 3-betting doesn't changes much street to street

[/ QUOTE ]

This hand often plays MUCH better by waiting to raise the river barring a specific read, and waiting until the river is a pretty standard line.

One big benefit is that it often freezes a poor handreading 3 up on the river and saves you a bet--the likelihood of being 3-bet changes substantially from street to street against many opponents. Another is that you don't lose out on the equity you have in the pot from your 2 outs the times you are beat. Another is that you often get an extra bet out a guy who is on total air.

Obviously if the guy will habitually call the raise with a naked ten and then bet out on the river, always check the river after betting the turn, or reliably go off for way too many bets with a hand that you beat trying to represent the 3, raising the turn is better, but if you're planning to fold to a 3-bet on the turn you might as well wait and pop the river.

scrub

[MRBAA]

I am a professional writer, not a professional poker player, as I often have to remind people in both worlds.

Anyway, I thought the guy was likely taking a shot so elected to call the turn rather than raise. When he bet the river, it surprised me. Since I didn't know him at all, I just called. He showed down AQ and mhwg.

Thinking about the hand, I think raising the turn/betting the river is probably the play, as any pair will probably call (incorrectly).

Raising the river also works -- as Scrub pointed out, you get to draw to your 2 outer, although against an unknown player I wouldn't fold to a turn 3 bet.

[TheHip41]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the opponents liklihood of 3-betting doesn't changes much street to street

[/ QUOTE ]

Does his liklihood of folding?




[/ QUOTE ]



No.


The retards i've been playing on party 2/4 this week would call me down with any T, and 4, and PP, and probably A high. Seriously.

If you bet this river and got called, would you really be that suprised if you checked the HH and the villian called down with 22?

[brettbrettr]

[ QUOTE ]
He showed down AQ and mhwg

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh man, the only reason to call the turn here is to get another bet or two out of him on the river. You have to raise the river.

[brettbrettr]

[ QUOTE ]
The retards i've been playing on party 2/4 this week would call me down with any T, and 4, and PP, and probably A high. Seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, BUT by raising the river and being called you're getting the same exact three bets that you would by raising the turn, being checked and called on the river.

Plus, if he's bluffing you might be able to get him to bluff again on the river.

Plus, as Scrub pointed out, a 3might even even call your raise on the river due to confusion.

[J.R.]

[ QUOTE ]
One big benefit is that it often freezes a poor handreading 3 up on the river and saves you a bet--the likelihood of being 3-bet changes substantially from street to street against many opponents. Another is that you don't lose out on the equity you have in the pot from your 2 outs the times you are beat. Another is that you often get an extra bet out a guy who is on total air.

[/ QUOTE ]

My original point was that MRBAA is wrong to figure most will fold correctly on the turn. I only provided some lighthearted arguments as to why one would raise the turn when somebody asked me.

However, I still think calling the turn isn't right because more people will fold correctly on the turn than on the river, which I think is backwards, but its better because of what a bluff does. I know you miss out on the 2 outs if you fold to a turn 3-bet, but given that only matters if he has a 3, I think its a pretty remote consideration here (but wouldn't be if we didn't have 2 pair). I also think waiting to the river doesn't materially change what a 3 does though.

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]

I am a professional writer, not a professional poker player, as I often have to remind people in both worlds.


[/ QUOTE ]

The more I think about it, the more I admire that you're willing to post hands that you know there's a good chance you misplayed while you're touring with the book. If your book encourages its readers to develop a similar attitude towards their study of poker, it's one of the best on the market no matter what else is in there.

But you still have to raise the river.

scrub

[scrub]

[ QUOTE ]
However, I still think calling the turn isn't right because more people will fold correctly on the turn than on the river, which I think is backwards, but its better because of what a bluff does. I know you miss out on the 2 outs if you fold to a turn 3-bet, but given that only matters if he has a 3, I think its a pretty remote consideration here (but wouldn't be if we didn't have 2 pair). I also think the turn raise gets paid off more than the river raise, but that the difference isn't that great.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm having a hard time understanding what you posted here.

scrub

[brettbrettr]

I think playing him for a bluff in this spot is much more of a factor than "freezing him up" on the river. That said, I still think waiting til the river in hopes he bluffs again is the right play. If we didn't have 2 pair, its closer, but probably not much.

Also, readless, I'm not so sure I'm folding to a 3-bet.

I'm not sure what this means:

[ QUOTE ]
However, I still think calling the turn isn't right because more people will fold correctly on the turn than on the river

[/ QUOTE ]

Why exactly do you want him to fold? He's not folding anything that beats you.

[chesspain]

Can't analyze opponent's river bet without knowing your turn action.