$200 NL, getting tricky/stupid with suited connectors.

[TheWorstPlayer]

You and Spladle Master both need to realise that you guys are not the villain in this hand. And you are not the people that the villain in this hand thinks he's playing again. When you check/raise, he is NOT going to think that you have second pair or a flush draw. He is going to think you have a set or two pair. Which you do. Which is WHY check/raising a draw is a nasty move (which I do also). But you can't play a made hand that way and expect the opponent to see through it just because you also do it with a draw. You do it with a draw BECAUSE they CAN'T see through it and they expect you to have a good made hand. These people aren't using game-theoretic approaches and aren't expecting you to either. That's why you can check/raise all your draws and get them to fold and you can lead out all your sets and get them to raise. They are bad. If you check/raise your sets, they will fold. They don't notice that you check/raised your last ten draws.

[punter11235]

You really need to bet here, not checkraise. If you bet Villain dont know what you have : A9, K9, maybe 109, maybe draw ? maybe bluff ? if you checkraise he will fold any hand that don beat yours or drawing to sth better than yours. I would fold on the turn, if Villain is not blind he can see that you have 2pairs and he states that he can beat it. There is no reason not to believe him.

Best wishes !

[The Deuce]

Yeah, I miscounted his outs on the flop, assuming he has an overpair. He has five. My apologies.

I need to explain something here. This is not by any means my standard line. It's not a line I'd take knowing I was up against a 2+2 poster. But what almost nobody's acknowledging is that there are a ton of players at this level whose strongest inclination is to try to end the hand on the flop, and who will overplay these hands when faced with a goofy/confusing play like this. (I know it doesn't confuse GOOD PLAYERS.) These players will NOT necessarily read this as a set. Simple logic suggests that a set doesn't want to make it cheap to draw either, and such a player won't expect me to know precisely what he has. If I'm against a good player, I concede, the line sucks. I'm not trying to win $40 from a good player- I'm trying to stack a bad player. If I miss out on $20 worth of value in the process, big deal.
That being said, I appreciate all your comments and respect them. On reflection, maybe a bigger check-raise would have been better, but if my goal is to get it all in ON THE FLOP, I still don't think leading out, getting raised, and then reraising all-in is going to do it, and I don't want it to get to the turn and have a scare card screw with the plan.

Again, thanks for all the comments. They've been helpful.

[Spladle Master]

[ QUOTE ]
You and Spladle Master both need to realise that you guys are not the villain in this hand. And you are not the people that the villain in this hand thinks he's playing again. When you check/raise, he is NOT going to think that you have second pair or a flush draw. He is going to think you have a set or two pair. Which you do. Which is WHY check/raising a draw is a nasty move (which I do also). But you can't play a made hand that way and expect the opponent to see through it just because you also do it with a draw. You do it with a draw BECAUSE they CAN'T see through it and they expect you to have a good made hand. These people aren't using game-theoretic approaches and aren't expecting you to either. That's why you can check/raise all your draws and get them to fold and you can lead out all your sets and get them to raise. They are bad. If you check/raise your sets, they will fold. They don't notice that you check/raised your last ten draws.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm a little confused. I agree with what you are saying 100%, so why do you think I don't?

[TheWorstPlayer]

Sorry I thought that this quote
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't check-raised a flop with more than a pair in the past eighteen months. The check-raise is a power play. I basically only do it to induce folds.

[/ QUOTE ]
was saying that therefore villain wouldn't fold to a c/r. But now I see that you were agreeing that villain WOULD fold to a c/r often. Apologies.

[Spladle Master]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry I thought that this quote
[ QUOTE ]
I haven't check-raised a flop with more than a pair in the past eighteen months. The check-raise is a power play. I basically only do it to induce folds.

[/ QUOTE ]
was saying that therefore villain wouldn't fold to a c/r. But now I see that you were agreeing that villain WOULD fold to a c/r often. Apologies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, I gotcha. No worries.

[DrFeelgoodRC]

into a pf raiser I lead the flop $10-15 expecting a raise...once i get it i push top two..if i don't get it I panic and push on the turn anyway.

but in your sitch it looks like he hit a set with his JJ, i fold but i don't like it...actually i'd probably change my mind at the last second and figure him for QQ-AA and call even though i know he'l turn Jacks

Q-10's read dependant i won't worry about that.

[amoeba]

I think you guys are being a bit results oriented. I think flop min checkraise is fine assuming you do this with any 2 some of the time to snap off continuation bets.

strictly odds speaking, a mincheck raise is still bad odds for a 5 outer on the turn.

[TheWorstPlayer]

No one is saying that the problem is that it is providing odds that are too good. The problem is that it makes the villain cautious without committing a lot of his stack first.

[amoeba]

here is the thing though. it makes him cautious but it gets in an extra bet when villain has missed overs which is the majority of the time.

and often villain calls your check minraise with missed overs trying to catch what he thinks is a good 6 outs.

I don't think everybody folds missed overs to a flop check minraise. In fact I see this fairly rarely. Granted, I fold but most players at this level doesn't.