AJs--this hand sucked

Megenoita · #1 10-26-2005, 04:50 AM

Do you 3-bet this PF? Or wait to see if you flop well? Assume UTG is a player where you have some PF equity against him.

Is this turn a bet/fold? I think at the time I was thinking he probably hit his hand and I wanted to see if I hit one of my 7-11 outs. How bad is checking the turn through?

Party Poker 5/10 Hold'em (6 max, 6 handed) converter

Preflop: Hero is BB with A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img].
UTG raises, 3 folds, SB calls, Hero 3-bets, UTG calls, SB calls.

Flop: (9 SB) 6[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 7[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (3 players)
SB checks, Hero bets, UTG folds, SB calls.

Turn: (5.50 BB) K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] (2 players)
SB checks, Hero checks.

River: (5.50 BB) 9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (2 players)
SB checks, Hero checks.

Final Pot: 5.50 BB

#2 10-26-2005, 04:55 AM

I'd definitely bet the turn here. Preflop you 3bet an utg raiser, which makes it look like you have 2 big faces. When the K comes on the turn, from the SB's perspective, it makes it look a lot like you hit. If he c/r's you, you are beat.

Isn't bet the turn, check behind river UI standard?

Megenoita · #3 10-26-2005, 04:59 AM

The problem is, if I bet the turn, and he raises (probably meaning a Q or K), then I still have 7 outs, and I have to call because I'm now getting 8:1 on my call.

I'm wondering if this is a situation where I should "tend to check with outs, bet with no outs".

M

imported_leader · #4 10-26-2005, 05:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is, if I bet the turn, and he raises (probably meaning a Q or K), then I still have 7 outs, and I have to call because I'm now getting 8:1 on my call.

I'm wondering if this is a situation where I should "tend to check with outs, bet with no outs".

M

[/ QUOTE ]
The saying is the other way around I believe. When you bet with outs you have to win the pot right there less to make a profit because you can improve on the river even if he calls. Without outs, like a PP, you should tend to check if you are unsure were you are in order to ensure a 1BB showdown and induce river bluffs. Of course you have to weigh that against protecting you hand from a free card.

Megenoita · #5 10-26-2005, 05:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is, if I bet the turn, and he raises (probably meaning a Q or K), then I still have 7 outs, and I have to call because I'm now getting 8:1 on my call.

I'm wondering if this is a situation where I should "tend to check with outs, bet with no outs".

M

[/ QUOTE ]
The saying is the other way around I believe. When you bet with outs you have to win the pot right there less to make a profit because you can improve on the river even if he calls. Without outs, like a PP, you should tend to check if you are unsure were you are in order to ensure a 1BB showdown and induce river bluffs. Of course you have to weigh that against protecting you hand from a free card.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been looking in TOP and I'm really trying to find this quote.

I understand the principle that the more I have a chance to outdraw villain, the more likely I should be to bet. But there's also the principle that it's good to bet when you are able to fold to the raise, right? When you bet, and know if you're raised that you're behind, yet you still have to call, that's an incentive to check, no?

M

Transference · #6 10-26-2005, 06:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I understand the principle that the more I have a chance to outdraw villain, the more likely I should be to bet. But there's also the principle that it's good to bet when you are able to fold to the raise, right? When you bet, and know if you're raised that you're behind, yet you still have to call, that's an incentive to check, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe the correct move depends on what you estimate your fold equity to be. Im thinking it would be marginally more important than the probability of being c/r because you may win the whole pot.

imported_leader · #7 10-26-2005, 03:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is, if I bet the turn, and he raises (probably meaning a Q or K), then I still have 7 outs, and I have to call because I'm now getting 8:1 on my call.

I'm wondering if this is a situation where I should "tend to check with outs, bet with no outs".

M

[/ QUOTE ]
The saying is the other way around I believe. When you bet with outs you have to win the pot right there less to make a profit because you can improve on the river even if he calls. Without outs, like a PP, you should tend to check if you are unsure were you are in order to ensure a 1BB showdown and induce river bluffs. Of course you have to weigh that against protecting you hand from a free card.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've been looking in TOP and I'm really trying to find this quote.

I understand the principle that the more I have a chance to outdraw villain, the more likely I should be to bet. But there's also the principle that it's good to bet when you are able to fold to the raise, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

That has to with more then just outs thou. It also has to do with whether you can be sure your folding the worst hand.

[ QUOTE ]
When you bet, and know if you're raised that you're behind, yet you still have to call, that's an incentive to check, no?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I'm mainly talking about here is when you have the choice between checking thou and taking a free river or betting. There's a lot of CR bluffing the turn in 6m. This has more of an effect on weak made hands then on draws. Obviously, if you are likely to face a CR that should deter you from betting if you don't have a strong hand. It should however deter you more from raising weak made hand because you could be bluffed off the best hand for the same price as just seeing a showdown. For example say you JJ in this hand, I think this would good spot to check thou because SB likely has you beat or is drawing really thin.

ddubois · #8 10-27-2005, 04:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The saying is the other way around I believe.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've never been to clear on the full meaning of that expression, but it is definately not the other way around.

imported_leader · #9 10-27-2005, 08:26 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The saying is the other way around I believe.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've never been to clear on the full meaning of that expression, but it is definately not the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

Megenoita · #10 10-27-2005, 08:43 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The saying is the other way around I believe.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've never been to clear on the full meaning of that expression, but it is definately not the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where tf is this quote? I can't find it for some reason...

My understanding was that you tend to bet with no outs because you can fold to the raise. That said, if you fear villain can bluff-raise, then this doesn't apply (I believe Sklansky makes that point, too). You tend to check with outs because you don't need that fold equity as badly.

I found info in TOP on page 87 that actually advises to tend to bet with outs and check with no outs, though, for the reasons that have been stated in this thread.

I think if the way I quoted it is correct, the difference in application of the two contradicting statements is perhaps when the pot is bigger and you don't care so much about the fold equity, but getting to the river is more important.

M