Stealing from other forums...

[detruncate]

I like the turn check, and my instinct was to bet/fold the river. There are several 3-betting hands that might be behind us, but I'm not sure they find a bet on the river. Is Villain more likely to bet when behind or call a bet? Also, should we worry about being bluff raised, and if so how much?

I'm waffling between bet/folding and check/calling. I don't love check/folding on the face of it, but I haven't completely discounted it either.

Hero might be raising a bit light, so it's conceivable that Villain could open up his 3-betting range a bit. But capping OOP vs a decent player would seem to suggest a reasonable amount of strength on Hero's part.

Therefore, how to we play it if we're Villain and are checked to on the turn holding a PP < K? Say, TT.

I'm going to be tempted to bet this turn. But is Hero going to check/fold KK or QQ or JJ often enough? His check could easily be a move to avoid being pushed off a hand he wants to show down. I don't love firing at it, but the other options seem to be giving up or bluff raising the river.

So, let's assume we bet the turn like Villain did and get called. Do we fire again on the river? It seems to be the only chance to pick up the pot, but the only capping hands we have a chance to fold are KK and JJ (and not everyone caps JJ, especially OOP).

A better PP doesn't have odds to call the turn and fold the river, so Hero's call seems to suggest that he's planning to show down. So how much does the Q change things? QQ and AQ now beat Hero, which means he's running out of hands he's ahead of. Only a smaller PP, really, unless Villain 3-bet with something very strange.

This is assuming that Villain is thinking things through, of course. An aggressive player might just fire at the river since giving up is not acceptable when they feel there's at least some chance of taking down the pot. But how does it affect our river play if we're Hero?

On the face of it, a reasonable Villain would seem likely to opt for a free showdown most often after being called on the turn with the hands we're ahead of unless we're getting into deeper levels of thinking. But will he call a bet? I'd think not since it seems even worse than betting. In fact, it seems that a river donk on Hero's part just opens him up to a bluff raise for little good reason since he can't expect to be called profitably unless Villain calls way too much in general. It might be less clear in blind steal situation, but as is Villain is probably only calling AA, QQ, AK, AQ.

Another stupidly long post. Oh well. I think the line used by Hero is better than bet/calling. But is a check/fold better?

An aggressive Villain might bluff simply because he knows we know that it's a bad idea and might therefore be planning to fold KK or JJ. This only really matters if Villain is worried about splitting or is on a smaller PP. It all seems to come down to player reads and pot size. I'm not sure the pot is large enough to justify trying to pick off a bluff unless Villain is generally over-aggressive or loves bluffing, but I wouldn't think it's likely to be a huge mistake.

I guess I check/call vs an aggressive/bluffy opponent, check/fold otherwise, bet/fold vs a TAG who pays off way too much and is fairly straight forward.

Why are you so sure 3bet can't mean lesser pair than TT. IMO it's a standart isolating play, which I sure make with (55)66-99, assuming we are ahead of every non-pair.

Am I wrong?

By the way, where can I get, WHAT is the WA/WB concept?

[RatFink]

[ QUOTE ]
But if you would call a river bet, shouldnt you bet yourself since he won't raise a worse hand in this spot? Otherwise he will only check through the hands you beat and you will pay him off when he is ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you check-call the turn, that dynamic changes a bit.

To many players it communicates that you are going to showdown. To others it is a sign that you can be moved off the hand.

You did it to avoid being bluff raised off the best hand on the turn. A cheap showdown play.

Against those understanding the dialog as meaning you are going to showdown, the bet-fold line won't be called by a hand you beat and the check-call picks up another bet often enough, while never putting you in a position where you feel you need to fold. You may miss a value bet, but you never abandon a pot.

Against those that feel your weakness on the turn means you can be moved off the hand, a bet-fold line will get raised more often than you think. A check-call line again picks up another bluff bet occassionaly, and if checked behind you got your cheap showdown and missed a value bet. However you picked up that value bet on the turn where you likely would not have been called.

[Bob T.]

I think against a lot of opponents, there is a lot of merit in the 'pro' line. At the same time, I don't think that they can imagine some of the opponents that populate the low stakes game, especially online. Today, I know I missed several value bets, against a couple of players, because I thought that they were rational. After I saw a couple of the calldowns that they made against other players, I realized that they were going to call with a lot more hands than they would bet, and that I had better be betting in those situations, or I would be leaving a lot of chips on the table.

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
They all said that check call was the obvious play on the turn against almost any opponent and at any limit, none even said it was close. As for the river, the recommended play was check and make a crying call because of the pot odds. If the guy bets the river again you should expect to lose but pay off anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mind this line. I also don't mind Negraneaus KQ line.

I don't mind doing this crap if a free card is unlikely to hurt me. I like the line better against good players than bad ones.

Against loose/passive/bad players, I like bet folding; because they will pay off with worse hands and I don't mind folding to their raise.

Against reasonable aggressive players, I like "the PRos" line. Because many aggressive players (us included) will bet that turn if checked to... many times.

So yes I like their line aginst decent aggressive players. As long as a free card can't hurt you, and there is a reasonalbe chance you may be beat anyway.

[Evan]

[ QUOTE ]
Negreanu, Eric Lindgren, Jennifer Harmon, and Joe Cassidy all recommend a play here that I'm pretty sure everyone on this board would disagree with.

[/ QUOTE ]
I hope it's betting the river but I'm scared that it's probably check folding the river.

[Evan]

From fullcontactpoker.com:
You have K-Q with the King of spades. Board is 2-3-7-9 all spades. You check and your opponent bets. Obviously, you should just call here and check the river.

I'm not going to try to extrapolate a whole lot from this statement because I'm pretty sure Daniel Negreanu is better at poker than me, but the line above is almost always wrong for any small or mid limit game I've ever played in. Likewise, check folding the river in the OP hand as a default line is also wrong.

[ErrantNight]

brocktoon...

no offense, but about 8 million people in that other post all said it was a way ahead/way behind situation on the turn. then those same people, after making that evaluation, advocated bet/fold.

those are the same people that pop up every now and then and disagree with the way ahead/behind line

in the KQ with K64 situation... the correct line is c/call c/call bet with the only decision being whether to fold or call. not c/r the flop. bet/folding is terrible anywhere before the river.

if you don't see how reasonable players make turn moves with worse hands you're opening yourself up for some serious punishment on that street.

[Toonces]

[ QUOTE ]
By the way, where can I get, WHAT is the WA/WB concept?

[/ QUOTE ]

It stands for Way Ahead or Way Behind.