The AK turn spot - Page 3

andyfox · #21 11-01-2005, 01:06 PM

"more people are checkraising rivers now with 66 than they were 8 months ago. And, in another year, betting AK on the river will be dumb."

Maybe, then, in another year, it will make more sense than it does now to check A-A, etc., behind on the turn, in order to win 3 bets on the river?

Josh W · #22 11-01-2005, 01:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"more people are checkraising rivers now with 66 than they were 8 months ago. And, in another year, betting AK on the river will be dumb."

Maybe, then, in another year, it will make more sense than it does now to check A-A, etc., behind on the turn, in order to win 3 bets on the river?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely, I think.

My post wasn't meant as a correction to anything anybody said. It was just ironic, because earlier yesterday I was having a conversation with a friend about the changing nature of texas hold'em, and he completely did not understand.

I think the easiest way to illustrate the change is the 'free card raise'. It got so common about 18 months ago, that people started threebetting all hands they wanted to one-bet. Some people would then go for the free-card cap (which is the oxyest of morons), and that may have worked with mixed results. Shortly thereafter, the one-bettor/three-bettor would then lead in on the turn after being capped. And before too long, the free card raiser wisened up or went broke, cuz putting in 47.5 BB and getting even money on it as a 2:1 (or worse) dog didn't seem to be paying the dividends that putting in 1BB in the same scenario did.

Yeah, I know it was a run on sentence. I'll try to change that, much like poker changes.

Josh

andyfox · #23 11-01-2005, 02:20 PM

Run-on or not, you make a good point. The game is changing, I think, at a more rapid pace than ever before. I suppose it's the influx of young players drawn to poker now from seeing it on TV and the relative ease of learning the game from the comfort of their desk at home. It's not just the so-called free-card raise and cap. It's the turn raise when picking up a flush draw; it's betting out into a limper when the flop is K-3-2; and other things.

Another thing I notice is the influence of no-limit poker on the limit games. While the trend is towards more aggression, as in your oxymoronic "free" card 4-bet, there is also a countertrend of limping and calling from players who usually play no-limit but are either "slumming" in a limit game or waiting for a no-limit seat. Someone could probably write a good article for the magazine on how limit players play no-limit and no-limit players play limit that distinguishes them from limit players playing limit and no-limit players playing no-limmit. Hopefully they'll have a better lead sentence than that one.

Ian J · #24 11-01-2005, 03:18 PM

Great post Steve. The fact that he almost has to have either a pair or a hand w/ 3 outs is what makes it work. Giving a free card is hardly at all bad while getting one is great vs. the pairs. The board in this hand here is the ideal one to check behind on IMO. I only have one question. If the board is T943 rainbow on the turn are you then betting or checking behind?

Steve Giufre · #25 11-01-2005, 03:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Great post Steve. The fact that he almost has to have either a pair or a hand w/ 3 outs is what makes it work. Giving a free card is hardly at all bad while getting one is great vs. the pairs. The board in this hand here is the ideal one to check behind on IMO. I only have one question. If the board is T943 rainbow on the turn are you then betting or checking behind?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I like a bet there. Especially if his opening range is a little wider than just AQ, AK 99-AA or whatever. That board has some draws to it and I think I bet the turn and check behind the river. Even though it doesnt happen very often, there is also the possibility he folds something like 66 to a turn bet with that board as well. If checked raised I would punch the monitor and decide whether or not I wanted to pay off.

Ian J · #26 11-01-2005, 03:31 PM

I was thinking exactly those thoughts and was hoping you'd say the same. Mainly to charge KQ and KJs specifically and the slight possibility of folding 66-77, although that is admittedly pretty slight in these games.

Steve Giufre · #27 11-01-2005, 05:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I was thinking exactly those thoughts and was hoping you'd say the same. Mainly to charge KQ and KJs specifically and the slight possibility of folding 66-77, although that is admittedly pretty slight in these games.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah we are definitely on the same page.