Today's quiz at Cardplayer: steal situation

[Victor]

why would anyone bet the turn here?

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
why would anyone bet the turn here?

[/ QUOTE ]

The usual reasons? Because villain might be on a draw, our hand might be best, if our hand is no good there are a ton of outs and villain will not necessarily c/r.

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
why would anyone bet the turn here?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sweet. Victor agrees with me. I might actually be right for once.

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
The usual reasons? Because villain might be on a draw, our hand might be best, if our hand is no good there are a ton of outs and villain will not necessarily c/r.

[/ QUOTE ]
yeah, but...

* this flop is coordinated and likely to have hit BB
* a checkraise sucks here. we have just enough outs to call, but not enough to feel very good about it.
* you can induce a bluff on the end from a busted draw or other random hand that peeled on the flop. usually that bet will go in either way on the river.
* you might extract a couple bets on the river if you hit a Q and BB was slowplaying JT or something

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
why would anyone bet the turn here?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sweet. Victor agrees with me. I might actually be right for once.

[/ QUOTE ]

youre well on your way to being a marginal winner with huge swings.

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
why would anyone bet the turn here?

[/ QUOTE ]

The usual reasons? Because villain might be on a draw, our hand might be best, if our hand is no good there are a ton of outs and villain will not necessarily c/r.

[/ QUOTE ]

if hes passive this line is good and you have to fold. the reasoning is that you are charging him for his draws and if he does cr then you likely only have 4 outs since he is only cring with 2 pair or better. if this is 30/60 live in vegas i think this is probably a good line.

against an aggro semibluffing opponent i prefer checking behind and if you are betting you have to call since you certainly have odds against his one pair hands even if you are reverse dominated. on party i think you gotta call the raise and its probably better not to even bet bc of my next point.

the thing about your hand is you have 0 bluffing power. you are either ahead or behind to a pair and NOONE FOLDS A PAIR HEADS UP. with hands like kq or q9 or 89 or k9 i would like a bet bc there is some chance he lays down ace high. ultimately, bet/fold against an aggro here is only goin to allow you to be 1. moved off a better hand and 2. not realize your hands potential.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The usual reasons? Because villain might be on a draw, our hand might be best, if our hand is no good there are a ton of outs and villain will not necessarily c/r.

[/ QUOTE ]
yeah, but...

* this flop is coordinated and likely to have hit BB
* a checkraise sucks here. we have just enough outs to call, but not enough to feel very good about it.
* you can induce a bluff on the end from a busted draw or other random hand that peeled on the flop. usually that bet will go in either way on the river.
* you might extract a couple bets on the river if you hit a Q and BB was slowplaying JT or something

[/ QUOTE ]
Wynton is right...

Checking behind with outs is good if we're not likely to have the best hand. That's not the case here.

[ QUOTE ]
* a checkraise sucks here. we have just enough outs to call, but not enough to feel very good about it.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is just wrong because:

1) Poker is about making correct decisions, not about feeling good or bad when raised.

2) We're not getting c/r'ed 100% of the time.

If villain had just called or folded (which happens sometimes here), this wouldn't have been an issue.

[sammy_g]

I'd like to run the numbers in PokerStove to see how much equity we have against a reasonable BB range. This is a pure value/protect-your-hand-type bet as Victor points out.

We induce a bluff a lot on the river from the hands that we beat. This makes a big difference. That bet goes in anyway often when we are ahead and would have checked behind on the river after a turn bet.

By feeling bad about the checkraise, I mean that we often do not have a huge amount of outs when it happens -- at best about 7 outs on average I'd estimate -- but enough that we have to call. I'd like the turn bet a lot more if we could fold to a turn c/r.

Yes, poker is about making correct decisions, and I believe checking the turn here is the correct decision.

(Of course this all depends on the opponent. If BB is very loose and passive, a bet in mandatory.)

What's with this mythos that "you have to protect your hand" in situations where your opponent won't fold? If he has a strong draw your bet is for value, not protection. If he's an idiot chaser your bet is for (more) value, not protection. The best we can hope to fold here is a 6 outer or a very weak draw with no pair. Weigh that against the disaster that occurs when you get check-raised here (2 bets in with less than 20% equity) and it should become clear that the only time you'd like to bet this to protect your hand in this small pot is when you're against a passive opponent who's c/r range is strong enough that you can comfortably fold.

[sammy_g]

[ QUOTE ]
Checking behind with outs is good if we're not likely to have the best hand. That's not the case here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I think there is where we disagree. It's fairly likely we don't currently have the best hand if a reasonable BB calls a bet on this flop.