K4o SB HU - Page 2

#11 10-07-2005, 07:54 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think the turn check is to help create post flop balance.

If I complete, there's a lot of hands I'm betting here on this flop that have no showdown value. So if he knows that and calls, I don't want him to be able to start calling to see if I check the turn and give up (against predictable opponents when I'm in position vs them HU I will often call the flop just because they often give up if they have nothing and let me take the pot with a turn bet).

That is the reason for the turn check. And no, it was going to be a check/call turn, and bet out on the river, if he did bet the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand your point, and it's a good one. However, I rather you would make this play with a hand that is less vulnerable.

mc1023 · #12 10-07-2005, 07:55 PM

thats a good meta-game point.

you want to create some balance by sometimes check/calling the turn while sometimes betting the turn so that he doesn't just call the flop with a weak holding/draw and try to take it away if you give up on the turn.

but that also goes both way because I'm guessing when you check the turn you are showdown bound on the river, and you might've just given him a free card to hit.

If I was going to do something like this I would do it at a better time than when I have a very vulnerable pair.

tonysoldier · #13 10-07-2005, 07:55 PM

I like the flop and turn.

I would check the river. I doubt he'll pay you off with a lot of losers. It'll probably go check check and you'll win and feel stupid. Whatever. Hopefully he'll start to think you're weak and respect you too much and fold winners and get run over and such. Maybe.

Schneids · #14 10-07-2005, 07:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Re: the river bet

I'm trying to put him on a hand since he didn't raise preflop and called the flop and checked behind on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

My thinking, at the point of the river bet: The flop call means he might have something, might have overcards (flop call tells us little). Ok, now the ace hits and I check, he checks behind. I decided I thought it meant that he had a piece of the board but was afraid I was either checkraising or check/folding, so either way, he wanted to get to showdown for one more bet. He probably figures that him checking the turn is going to get me to make some stupid river bluffs (which sometimes it might).

BTW I often limp aces from the SB and especially against people who like to 3 bet my SB raises (he does quite often), since I prefer playing in small pots when OOP. I also wouldn't put it entirely past him to check an ace PF, though given his flop call I think it's unlikely (ie I think the aces he checks with, A2-A7, are all raising on that flop when I bet).

I think your analysis, however, has merit and are all things to consider when playing these small stupid dinky pots.

#15 10-07-2005, 08:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I think the turn check is to help create post flop balance.

If I complete, there's a lot of hands I'm betting here on this flop that have no showdown value. So if he knows that and calls, I don't want him to be able to start calling to see if I check the turn and give up (against predictable opponents when I'm in position vs them HU I will often call the flop just because they often give up if they have nothing and let me take the pot with a turn bet).

That is the reason for the turn check. And no, it was going to be a check/call turn, and bet out on the river, if he did bet the turn.

EDIT: after posting the hand I sent NLSoldier a link to it and he responded to me, "boring" and "what street is interesting?", where as I look at pretty much every street here as pretty interesting and important to get right since most the decisions and reasons for them are fairly close. Everyone knows how to play TPTK or sets or stuff but it's how often you make the right choices with middle pair and bottom pair and no pair (esp when out of position against a good opponent) that make a huge difference.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you checked the turn and the villain bet, why would you bet out on the river? given that your turn check couldve easily induced your opponent to bet almost anything including total bluffs, I would check the river again and hope my opponent bluffs again the times he is bluffing. I am not saying your way is wrong, I'm just telling you how I wouldve played the rest of the hand had I checked the turn and the villain bet instead of checking. Is there anything flawed or missing in my analysis?

Robb · #16 10-07-2005, 08:15 PM

[ QUOTE ]
He probably figures that him checking the turn is going to get me to make some stupid river bluffs (which sometimes it might).

[/ QUOTE ]

That might swing the river bet to +EV since he might call Q or K high. Not to mention he may check behind a 4 or 3 especially if he believes you are capable of check-raising a pair..... but you won't pay off his river bet if you happen to have K or Q high. In short, hell if I know.

I think I read Renaud is very good. True by your experience?

Schneids · #17 10-07-2005, 08:16 PM

If I check/call the turn I think he checks behind with too many hands I beat and most of his bets are hands that I'm losing to (ie I'd be more inclined to checkfold then check call again on the river, though today I would probably check call because of my tight image and the increased possibility he might be bluffing) that would've called a river bet, because once I check/call the turn it's pretty obvious I'm probably not folding on the river.

#18 10-07-2005, 08:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If I check/call the turn I think he checks behind with too many hands I beat and most of his bets are hands that I'm losing to (ie I'd be more inclined to checkfold then check call again on the river, though today I would probably check call because of my tight image and the increased possibility he might be bluffing) that would've called a river bet, because once I check/call the turn it's pretty obvious I'm probably not folding on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanx for your response, all your points are valid. So many decisions in this hand are very close. Good thread.

ALL1N · #19 10-07-2005, 10:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
since I prefer playing in small pots when OOP

[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer the opposite, since position gives you information, and small pots are all about information.

Could you explain your opinion here pls?

NLSoldier · #20 10-07-2005, 10:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
since I prefer playing in small pots when OOP

[/ QUOTE ]

I prefer the opposite, since position gives you information, and small pots are all about information.

Could you explain your opinion here pls?

[/ QUOTE ]

that was deep.

I have a feeling schneider's reasoning is because you are more likely to get pushed off the best hand when OOP, so he'd rather have the pot smaller and thus the opponent getting a worse price on his bluffs. Thats a total guess though.