A Theory Question on Betting the Turn Heads Up

[cartman]

I open-raise in the cutoff and get called by one loose aggressive opponent who loves to checkraise. He checks the flop and I bet. He checks the turn and I....... face what is for me probably the toughest situation in hold em.

I think the prevailing thought is that against habitual turn checkraisers, we have to often check behind on the turn with hands that we want to show down but that we would hate to be raised with (like Ace high or a weak pair). We are often reimbursed on the river when we were ahead on the turn because he will usually bet regardless of his cards just because we checked behind him on the turn.

I feel like I am rewarding these opponents when I check behind with a hand that is very likely to be in front just because I don't have the balls to pay three bets to showdown my 3rd pair or even 4th pair or Ace high. There are so many boards that these guys salivate over (low or paired or 3rd flush card on the turn. Especially a combination of more than one of these). You absolutely know as soon as you see the flop cards that your opponent is going to checkraise the turn. But in this situation it seems like you should almost put them on random cards.

<font color="blue">Is it possible that, regardless of our opponent, that we should almost always fire the turn in this situation when we have showdown value and then just make the decision on whether to fold to the raise based on the opponent?</font>

I continue to be conflicted about this topic and I find myself drifting back and forth. I go through periods when I am quite certain that always firing again with showdown value is best. But I also frequently gravitate toward checking behind with my weaker showdownable holdings because I would really hate to fold them but I really don't want to pay three bets to show them down.

<font color="blue">Can anyone offer any clarity to this situation?</font>

Thank you immensely for your input.

[marand]

If you have a very marginal hand against a loose and tricky player who loves to bluff. Checking behind and calling his automatic river bet is fine. If your hand is good enough not to puke if you get check/raised then it's an easy bet of course [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I tend to check more often on the turn when I am not comfortable folding to the turn ch/r and also not comfortable calling down. I guess I am trying to avoid getting into the "tough" decision. I don't think I am getting to enough showdowns so for me this is a way to avoid folding the best hand on a turn ch/r.

I find the situation where you are OOP on the turn with A-high or 3rd pair much more annoying. That's the trickiest situation for me I think. Do you feel that being OOP is easier in this situation? How do you generally play it?

[cartman]

Out of position is a nightmare too. Against an opponent who will always bet when checked to, I often just go into check call mode on the turn with a hand that I want to showdown but that I feel like I would have to fold to a raise (like a decent Ace high on low or paired or 3rd flush card hit the turn board). I also often just check fold when I have worse than Ace high on a board which he is guaranteed to raise if I bet.

Check-calling the turn against an opponent who will only follow through on the river if he has something is even more appealing because you can often check-call the turn and then fold if he follows through on the river. Unfortunately, the guys who love to raise the turn will almost never check behind you on the river.

These are just my current thoughts, and they may be dead wrong. Hopefully some posters who know more than I do will chime in.

Cartman

[Womble]

Coming from $1/2 I dont have this problem. I rarely see a turn check raise heads up so I usually always bet for the free showdown.

I think if you are unsure you can use the 'check hands with outs, bet hands with few outs' as a start. You probably know that though. I think this is the best approach against unkwowns since its easier to fold hands that are unlikely to improve to the checkraise.

The problem here is that you are facing a tricky opponent. With that read you want to get to showdown cheaply with the 2nd/3rd pairs etc but the better hands are still likely to be best.

Am I burbling? Just trying to write down my thoughts [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img]

[PennDisc]

[ QUOTE ]

The problem here is that you are facing a tricky opponent. With that read you want to get to showdown cheaply with the 2nd/3rd pairs etc but the better hands are still likely to be best.

[/ QUOTE ]

2nd pair is a monster against a player who will c/r the turn with any 2 cards.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]

I think if you are unsure you can use the 'check hands with outs, bet hands with few outs' as a start. You probably know that though. I think this is the best approach against unkwowns since its easier to fold hands that are unlikely to improve to the checkraise.

[/ QUOTE ]

the issue cartman is getting at is that certain opponents put you in this situation often enough that they are sometimes doing it with a worse hand. so you're either behind with 0-6 outs to improve, or you're ahead and your opponent has 3-6 outs to improve.

this is one of the tougher spots to find yourself in at 5/10, I think.

[cartman]

[ QUOTE ]
this is one of the tougher spots to find yourself in at 5/10, I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

And even more so at the higher limits I think. I guess I am question whether staying out of this spot by checking behind with our weaker showdownable hands is really the way to go. It is the easier way to go, but is it the best way?

Any thoughts?

Cartman

[marching_on_together]

Intresting discussion, it sounds to me that you seem to have the right kind of balance already. I agree checking avoids putting yourself in a tricky spot but i don't see that as playing paticularly weak it just avoides making some bad folds. It's always anoying the times they catch on the river with a hand that this time at least they weren't going to play back with on the turn, but that's the downside i guess.

You have to strike a balance but i agree it's difficult to draw any definitive line here.

[Monty Cantsin]

I think you have to define the problem more clearly.

Maybe you are confusing annoying for unprofitable. It can be annoying to play against someone who is check-raising too often, but it's definitely not unprofitable.

Always betting every hand with showdown value isn't the answer for a couple of reasons:

- the chronic check-raiser is giving you free cards with his strong hands, if you never take them you aren't punishing him enough.

- if he's chronically bluffing rivers after you check the turn then you want to keep giving him that opportunity.

But you know all this... so what is the real problem?

Maybe part of the key to understanding the problem is your comment that you don't have the "balls" to call him down after a checkraise.

It's easy to fall into the habit of emotionalizing these situations - in fact for recreational players it's a big part of the fun - but if you're just looking to get the most profit out of each situation then you can't afford to think this way. A checkraise isn't a personal attack on you, it isn't an affront to your authority or a test of your courage, even though that's often exactly what it feels like.

Try to view it as something completely neutral, like a mushroom. You're a scientist that studies fungus, oh look, here's one... is it edible? is it poisonous? what's it made out of? how rare is it? how valuable?

Just continue to adapt and adjust to these players. There's no magic bullet to kill tricky players: bet, check, fold, or call down based on situation and read, punish them for over-bluffing weak hands and not betting out with their strong hands. You'll get the money.

/mc