JJ EP from session review

[brazilio]

Just to make it clear, checkraising the turn is utterly retarded. Weak aces won't 3-bet you, pocket pairs might or might not bet out. An 8 likely won't, and you're providing a free look at the river for a flush draw. And if you're going to make an argument about predictable play, why don't you start getting out of the kiddie pool before you start thinking about retarded [censored] like this.

[adsman]

[ QUOTE ]
Just to make it clear, checkraising the turn is utterly retarded. Weak aces won't 3-bet you, pocket pairs might or might not bet out. An 8 likely won't, and you're providing a free look at the river for a flush draw. And if you're going to make an argument about predictable play, why don't you start getting out of the kiddie pool before you start thinking about retarded [censored] like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Repeat after me: Thursday is the BLUE pill.

[DCWildcat]

I thought bet/folding the turn was standard here...

since you based your arguments on table image only, I will only talk about that.
1) I think you overestimate table image at 1/2. The people who are good enough to notice and adjust are multitabling most of the time and therefore don't really see what's happening. Especially when you check/call. They would have to watch all the way to SD and then realize that you didn't bet out the turn with a high pp after playing aggressively on the flop. I think that is a little too much.
All the others don't notice such things anyway. Check/call is their standard play for almost anything.

2) Betting out on the turn and then folding to a raise looks a lot weaker than check/calling. Everybody notices that. Most people still won't adjust their play to that in the micro limits. I always notice when someone folds to a raise even when I play multiple tables. So I don't think you do yourself a favor here.

Long story short: table-image-wise the move didn't matter at all, imo.

Bet/fold certainly is the right thing to do against an opponent who wouldn't bet or raise without a made hand. You really don't want to give a free card then.

But what if you are raised by an aggressive player that is fully capable of semi-bluffing and representing trips here (having an 8 or even nothing at all)? I think you are in a pretty tough spot then, esp. if you could be very confident that the aggressive player would use this fine opportunity to (semi-)bluff you. Therefore I think that checking has some value here (no matter if you agree with adsman and raise or you don't and call). Labeling it "retarded" without having reads of the opponent or even demanding some is certainly ... well ... slightly below optimal.

[brazilio]

You lose value against an 8 that likely won't bet, you love value against any other pocket pair, and you certainly lose value against a flush draw. That by far outweighs whatever problem you have with folding the turn. This is a bad flop for us anyway, and putting it in terms of "aggressive" opponents is misleading because no micro limit game is aggressive enough to make this a hard fold.

[ QUOTE ]
First, note that this is not a big pot. Your hand was compromised by the A on the flop, but you nonetheless played aggressively. OK, you played aggressively, but then you failed to lead out on the turn.

I don't understand why you failed to lead out on the turn. Are you less beaten by one A than two? You appear committed to the pot anyway; why not behave consistently? If he has an A--a big if, imho--he will raise, and you can bow out gracefully, losing little. IT'S A SMALL POT. If he does not raise, you then may lead out or check the river as you wish.

A lead on the river might induce a fold, and it is consistent. Make that, consistently aggressive. It serves warning to your opponent and to the other players at the table you will defend your holdings, and press an advantage. This is +ev in every way, an enhanced table image is always +ev. The leadout on the river may even induce a bluff raise, or a legitimate raise. So what? You suck it up and pay the buck. In fact, if anyone was behaving weak tight, it was hero here, and other players must surely have noted it. I wonder how your session ended?

Cost, one (that's one) extra bet, at most. Impaired standing at the table? Maybe many bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

hehe i liked this... a few points tho.

first up, weak/tight players dont call down, they fold. there is a difference between passive play and weak play. and btw this session ended up around 50BB after about 90 hands (was short specifically for the session review)

im not checking because i think im beat, im checking to induce bets from him. why would you ever want vil to fold a worse hand?

my problem with bet/folding the turn is that a) im just not totally confident making bet/fold lines yet, b) it opens me up to the obvious bluffraise (or even value raise with a hand like 99 that now doesnt believe and is raise/folding) that i think would be a very small mistake to call down.

thats why i dont like that play.

i think here either he has an ace (WA) or a PP (WB), people (including me) that suggested he has an 8x are seriously mistaken in hindsight, he CC on the button. what hands with an 8 can coldcall on the button? the chances of him having an 8 are almost negligent. to be honest in game i didnt notice the flush draw, and giving a free card is bad, but i dont see a way to avoid it.

if we are WA/WB then we want to get to showdown. this is the cheapest way to get there. when he is ahead he will bet both and we only lose 2BB (minimise loss when ahead?). when he is behind he will bet most likely twice for 2BB, rather than folding the turn or river if we were to bet ourselves (maximise wins when ahead). and of course if he checks through the turn we are bet/folding a club river or bet/calling a non-club river

i do see the merits in bet/folding the turn against an unknown here, i think the preferred play is entirely due to how much you see KcQc, KcJc, QcJc and KcTc as being a part of his range (note: its only 4 combos).

results: he was WB. he had less than 3 outs. he had 55.