TT

[Surfbullet]

[ QUOTE ]
If I am ahead, raising gets that second bet in before my opponent has a chance to outdraw me, and that was my main reason.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't a good reason. Your earn is the same regardless of the river, except the times when a draw fails to bluff the river when it would have called a turn raise. You aren't folding a hand that has any reasonable number of outs, and you don't want to open yourself up to a 3bet.

Work on getting to showdown with hands like this - especially when you have no fold equity and you are in position.

Surf

[GetThere1Time]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that a loose passive is going to call a raise with a bad pair and not fold it. So I like the free showdown play rather than the call/call on the turn and river. How passive was he exactly? Depending on the player you might get a free showdown anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make sense - if were raising for value (but taking a free showdown) we should just bet if checked to and call otherwise on the river, to avoid being 3bet. Those pair hands that will call a raise on the turn will undoubtably call 1 bet on the river.

The only gain is from when he has a flush draw and will not call a bet on the river - but these hands may take a stab with a bluff so it isn't a total loss.

Surf

[/ QUOTE ]

I know what you mean. If we think he has a low pair and we're raising for value why not bet the river. Hero has no clue where he's at and wants to take the hand to showdown. With a call/call we put in the 2 bets and let him bet a small pair/nothing twice.

A raise the turn/free showdown costs us the same amount but a) he's not putting in another bet with a better hand b)he'll probably call with a worse hand c) he'll call with any draw. On the turn, any two non-pair broadways have 7 or 8 outs. Villian could have picked up a flush draw or even have an OESD. He's also calling with any pair for the two pair draw. If we're spending two bets anyway we might as well charge him through the nose in the event he is drawing.

[GetThere1Time]

[ QUOTE ]
if two bets are going in the pot no matter what, it doesnt matter if they both go in when you are ahead or the last one goes in when you are behind. The end result is exactly the same, every single time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Things turn out the same except when Villian is drawing and decideds to check/fold the river. So why not lean toward the option that charges him the most in this scenario?

[Surfbullet]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if two bets are going in the pot no matter what, it doesnt matter if they both go in when you are ahead or the last one goes in when you are behind. The end result is exactly the same, every single time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Things turn out the same except when Villian is drawing and decideds to check/fold the river. So why not lean toward the option that charges him the most in this scenario?

[/ QUOTE ]

If villain is passive and predictable then this is a viable line. I prefer call-call because it guarantees a showdown, but this is more important at the 10/20+ where opponents are apt to do weird things like 3bet the turn with a small pair + gutshot or some such.

These were not the reasons advocated by the OP, however.

I prefer to get to SD, but there certainly is an argument for raising to charge draws - but as I stated prior many of these draws will bluff at the river when they miss, so it isn't a total 1 bet loss in that scenario, and we do not risk being 3bet by a better (or worse) hand.

Surf

[GetThere1Time]

I think we can safely fold to a turn 3-bet. He's loose passive and probably not 3-betting the turn without the goods. I guess its possible. I have seen stranger things. I guess its all relavent to how accurate the read is.

[Surfbullet]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we can safely fold to a turn 3-bet. He's loose passive and probably not 3-betting the turn without the goods. I guess its possible. I have seen stranger things. I guess its all relavent to how accurate the read is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, you're right. Getting 3bet means we're toast.

I guess since I think calling down is close (between calling and folding when the A hits on the turn) that I'm not keen on putting extra bets in when I think I'm so often behind.

Surf

[Alobar]

we have no reason to assume the villian is drawing. Just cuz the turn brings a 2 flush? Its waaaay more likely its something else.

And I said if two bets are going in the pot no matter what. If you know he isnt checking folding the river, then its exactly the same.

[GetThere1Time]

[ QUOTE ]
we have no reason to assume the villian is drawing. Just cuz the turn brings a 2 flush? Its waaaay more likely its something else.

And I said if two bets are going in the pot no matter what. If you know he isnt checking folding the river, then its exactly the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

Misunderstood. My mistake.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
Things turn out the same except when Villian is drawing and decideds to check/fold the river. So why not lean toward the option that charges him the most in this scenario?

[/ QUOTE ]
The answer is given in your next post:
[ QUOTE ]
I think we can safely fold to a turn 3-bet.

[/ QUOTE ]
Occassionally, we will get 3-bet on the turn and have to fold. If we just call on the turn, we sometimes get the chance to spike a ten on the river and win the pot plus a few more bets if he has something like AJ or 55. If he can sometimes have 65 and three-bet us with it, raise-folding the turn means we potentially give up on an eight outer.

If he is capable even once in a while of bluff three-betting (maybe his flopped open-ender just picked up a flush draw and he decides to push it), we avoid giving up on the best hand. And we lose the same two bets by calling down as by raise-folding when we are behind and wouldn't help. And we gain the same two when we are ahead. Since calling the turn lets us occassionally win pots we would have lost by raising and folding to a three-bet and never really costs us anythign, it is the better line.