When something doesn't "feel" quite right

[cmwck]

You can sometimes raise this PF.
Flop raise looks fine.
Once UTG folds, I think you're more like ahead/way behind. If you beat him, he could still have 6 outs to beat you. If he does have a king (unlikely given your description), you have 2 outs. EDIT: i guess if we assume he's not a total maniac then we can eliminate two high cards from his holdings. In that case it's WA/WB like you said.

Still, I don't think this changes our play. We still want him to keep bluffing or overplaying his 3, so raising the turn to stop a bluff is the wrong idea.

[sccrneo]

Would capping the flop be a correct play?

[cmwck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If this guy isn't a complete maniac, I raise the turn and check the river unimproved. I like this move, because I have a little more fold equity with the turn raise and it costs the same to see a showdown. If I think this guy is capable of bluff 3-betting me on the turn, I'd just call down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know about bluff 3-betting, but he might aggressively value bet his 3. Based on the action here and on previous hands, I don't think he would fold. It's a definitely a good line against more sane players.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the villain in this hand were a sane player, I'm not sure we have much fold equity. For example, if we raise the turn against the sane player, he'll fold a 3, 3-bet a king, and call down with a pocket pair higher than yours. Then again, a sane player probably wouldn't bet/raise the flop and lead the turn with just a 3, so the question would be whether we should fold the turn, not whether to raise it.

[SlantNGo]

There are way too many players who would play this way with Ace-high. Against a LAG who's noted to bet, bet, bet with Ace, King, and even Queen high type hands, I would play the same. Against a tricky player like the one you described, I think you played it fine as well, although I would consider dumping if an Ace showed up.

It's not just feel; it's reasonable.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a bit frustrated because I can't really quantify anything here in a reasonable way. It was one of those rare times where everything was just "feel". The flop 3-bet just "felt" strange. Am I crazy? Should I have just dumped it on the first flop bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

[Greg J]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't you want to raise preflop 4 handed with a pocket pair?

[/ QUOTE ]
Not in the big blind.

[GTSamIAm]

WA/WB. He very well could have a king. Or not. So turn call does not protect your hand if you are ahead. Raise or fold on turn then. Raise against laggers. Fold against more legitimate betting opponents. Don't worry about FPS.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
WA/WB. He very well could have a king. Or not. So turn call does not protect your hand if you are ahead. Raise or fold on turn then. Raise against laggers. Fold against more legitimate betting opponents. Don't worry about FPS.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are other things to do besides trying to protect hands...

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If this guy isn't a complete maniac, I raise the turn and check the river unimproved. I like this move, because I have a little more fold equity with the turn raise and it costs the same to see a showdown. If I think this guy is capable of bluff 3-betting me on the turn, I'd just call down.


[/ QUOTE ]

I like this line as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

It can be good. I don't think I like it here.

Raising for a free showdown can be good when,

1. You might get a better hand to fold. Generally this means someone has a pair better than yours.
2. You might be ahead. This is really important since if you aren't ahead putting extra bets in sucks.
3. You don't have a lot of draws. There are times where a free showdown raise is good also with a draw, but by default it's better without. This is because you don't want to pay 3-bets with a decent draw. (Decent is 5 outs or more)
4. Your opponent can't be capable of a bluff 3-bet. If he is, bet-fold lines are too risky.
5. Your opponent might be on a draw. Charge him.

In this particular hand, I don't like a turn raise for a free showdown. Here are the reasons.

1. We might get him to fold a better hand but it's very unlikely. The reason is he 3-bet the flop on a paired board. This means a really large % of the time he is going to showdown with either a pp or a king.

2. This is the crux of the issue. I don't think you are ahead often enough to put bets in here. Most of the time this line is used in a spot where you have a decent chance at being ahead and the chance of a 3-bet is pretty low. Because the 3-bet doesn't come often you can fold to it pretty easily. This also combines with point 4.

3. We have a 2-outer. No shame in folding two outs if we are behind.

4. Villian bet-3bet an uncoordinated paired flop. This isn't the standard line with trips but we can't rule out a king. Hero had a read that Villian was pretty fancy and could get out of line with a 3. This is exactly the kind of opponent that could bluff-3bet the turn. (I include 3-betting with a 3 in this category). Given the action I expect to get 3-bet a LOT here.

5. There are no draws. Make raising for a free showdown less favorable.

One other non-favorable factor is if he is on a bluff, he will often bluff the river. So when you raise for a free showdown, all you are really doing is winning the same 2 bets. (Unless he folds his bluff on the turn, then you win 1 less)

I think Hero played this hand to perfection.

Krishan

[sexypanda]

Great analysis. Thanks.

[MrWookie47]

Thanks for the input. I'm still trying to get the hang of when this play is a good option.