OK, these are the hands that may be costing me an extra 2BBs each time

[ QUOTE ]
I think this situation is so player dependant that it's hard to have a standard line here. In general TPTK is a hand where you've got the freedom to take different lines in different spots just for the sake of being different (especially against players who you expect to be HU with frequenty over the course of a session)

I do think that 3-betting and calling down from there on on a board like this is probably best. I find that when I go for the turn c/r, sometimes the turn card gives me more FE than I want and people who would have called down with TPNK are dumping there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you that this situation is very player dependent. My analysis was based on being against an unknown. In this situation, I believe the texture of the board is the most important factor in deciding whether to 3 bet lead, or call and checkraise the turn. And like you, against an unknown, I am calling down here every time.

Westley, I think that by checkraising the turn you will be forcing worse hands to fold that would have called down if you bet the turn.

I don't think that you take take much away from Westley's numerical analysis. Since the villian will be folding much more often to a turn checkraise than to a turn bet, the payoff stuctures are different. The 3.9 vs. 4.4 has too small a difference to make up for the assumptions that Westley has made.

[B Dids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think this situation is so player dependant that it's hard to have a standard line here. In general TPTK is a hand where you've got the freedom to take different lines in different spots just for the sake of being different (especially against players who you expect to be HU with frequenty over the course of a session)

I do think that 3-betting and calling down from there on on a board like this is probably best. I find that when I go for the turn c/r, sometimes the turn card gives me more FE than I want and people who would have called down with TPNK are dumping there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you that this situation is very player dependent. My analysis was based on being against an unknown. In this situation, I believe the texture of the board is the most important factor in deciding whether to 3 bet lead, or call and checkraise the turn. And like you, against an unknown, I am calling down here every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally agree, assuming we're both talking about 3-betting the flop and calling down (about which I was unclear in my post).

I Assumed that the villain would call down when trailing in both situations, and that the hero would call down in both situations when trailing, and that neither opponent would outdraw the other if theyre behind. I understand that these assumptions are not realistic, but I wanted to keep the analsis simple. The model I used to show that calling the flop and checkraising the turn can be better than 3betting the flop and leading, is very simplistic. And Im sure many of my assumptions are questionable. The message I was trying to convey is that calling the flop and checkraising the turn can still be a better strategy than 3 betting the flop and leading turn even if we assume the hero calls down that nasty turn 3 bet every time against an unknown. I think my model does a decent Job of showing this.
About the difference between 4.4sb and 3.9sb being too small to be relevant. I completely disagree with this one. Over a 1000 simluations of this situation, that would be a 250BB difference, and since many players are playing 10,000 hands or more per week, this difference is significant.

[CardSharpCook]

My experience and ponderings have lead me to the flat call/chkRz line for these reasons.

1. My flop equity is generally lower than my turn equity vs. most flop 2betting hands. Many OOP hands will juice the flop correctly with draws.

2. 95% of the time I am raised on the flop (OOP), villian WILL bet the turn.

3. 3betting the flop betrays the strength of my hand, while calling is generally correct provided I have 4 outs or more, and my opponents know this. Or at least they know that, in general, I'm not folding to a raise on the flop. Players who play against me, or even assume I am a normal player, will bet the turn with nothing knowing I may fold the turn 50% of the time. If I 3bet the flop, they will get away from these nothing hands cheaply.

4. When you show strength on the turn instead of the flop, the opponent feels like he is closer to the end of the hand, and so is less likely to dump 2nd/3rd button hands.

5. If we assume that the next time I raise him, villian will go into call down mode with a 2nd best hand, the turn chk/rz gains us an extra SB.

Of course, this really doesn't have anything to do with the question in the thread. I'm not concerned or planning to change my standard line. Stop commenting on the line up to the call down or fold on the turn 3bet. Are there any more arguments for call down or for a fold?

[ QUOTE ]
My experience and ponderings have lead me to the flat call/chkRz line for these reasons.

1. My flop equity is generally lower than my turn equity vs. most flop 2betting hands. Many OOP hands will juice the flop correctly with draws.

2. 95% of the time I am raised on the flop (OOP), villian WILL bet the turn.

3. 3betting the flop betrays the strength of my hand, while calling is generally correct provided I have 4 outs or more, and my opponents know this. Or at least they know that, in general, I'm not folding to a raise on the flop. Players who play against me, or even assume I am a normal player, will bet the turn with nothing knowing I may fold the turn 50% of the time. If I 3bet the flop, they will get away from these nothing hands cheaply.

4. When you show strength on the turn instead of the flop, the opponent feels like he is closer to the end of the hand, and so is less likely to dump 2nd/3rd button hands.

5. If we assume that the next time I raise him, villian will go into call down mode with a 2nd best hand, the turn chk/rz gains us an extra SB.

Of course, this really doesn't have anything to do with the question in the thread. I'm not concerned or planning to change my standard line. Stop commenting on the line up to the call down or fold on the turn 3bet. Are there any more arguments for call down or for a fold?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the standard line when playing online, should be to call down against an unknown.

While this is very player dependent, a lot of times I like capping with AQ on the turn. CO could be raising a weaker queen here or AQ as well, allowing you to either push him off his hand or win more money. The reason why I say CO could have a weaker queen is because many times, players will 3-bet KQ here in position and check behind you on the river if he fails to improve. It costs the same as calling you down, but can also cause you to fold a better hand.

Of course, it is possible CO does have a set. Therefore I like capping the turn and bet/folding the river or calling the turn and bet/calling the river.

[CardSharpCook]

Ok, standard vs. unknown, I agree. Would you go so far as to say that you would only fold vs. an uber-passive? What about good players with reasonable stats? 17/11/1.8. Still call down? What about donks with stats like 25/8/1? Or how about 35/4/.6?

[B Dids]

"4. When you show strength on the turn instead of the flop, the opponent feels like he is closer to the end of the hand, and so is less likely to dump 2nd/3rd button hands."

I think this is exact opposite in this spot. I think a turn c/r makes it much easier to lay down one pair hands that would just call you down given flop action.

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, standard vs. unknown, I agree. Would you go so far as to say that you would only fold vs. an uber-passive? What about good players with reasonable stats? 17/11/1.8. Still call down? What about donks with stats like 25/8/1? Or how about 35/4/.6?

[/ QUOTE ]
Against an Uber passive, this would be an easy fold since were probably drawing dead. Basically If I judge the villain's stats to be passive I will fold, and If I think the villain's stats are Laggish I will call down. If I have no stats on the villain or I am unable to draw a conclusion from reading the villain's stats, then I would call down.

As far as whether you should call down against a 17/11/1.8 or a 25/8/1 or a 35/4/.6, I think there are other posters that are more qualified to answer this since I am not at an expert level in analyzing someone's stats. I would love to here someone chime in on what they would do againt these 3 stat descriptions. In my opinion, all 3 of your stat descriptions look kind of passive to me which would lead me to be inclined to fold top pair if any of these guys 3 bet my turn checkraise.

For anyone else reading this, would you call down against any of these stat descriptions? or is this an easy fold against all 3 opponents?