Three-bet the turn with one pair?

[cartman]

Assume that villain is loose and aggressive. Not a maniac, but certainly capable of checkraising the turn with top or middle pair and also capable of checkraising with a draw, especially on a board he thinks I missed. I don't know what a turn cap or river 3-bet from him would mean. He will defend his BB with almost any two.

PREFLOP:
Hero open-raises in the CO with A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], only the BB calls.

FLOP: J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
BB checks, Hero bets, BB calls.

TURN: Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
BB checks, Hero bets, BB raises, Hero?


Here is my dilemma. I feel like I have the best hand often enough here that I need to put some more bets in at some point, either by 3-betting the turn or raising the river. The problem is that I also feel like it is borderline criminal to fold an overpair heads up unless the board is REALLY bad. But 3-betting the turn opens me up to a cap and raising the river opens me up to a 3-bet, both of which I feel obligated to call.

What do you guys think?

What would your line be if you had A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] instead?

Thanks,
Cartman

[ZZZ]

I agree that another raise is called for against aggressive players. And you should pay off a reraise from villian almost always. I always throw the raise in on the turn since I'm afraid he will check call the river -- maybe the river will get scary for him. There's arguments to wait of course, but I try to not be too fancy with strong hands on the big bet streets.

AQ is pretty much the same hand as AA in this spot, since villian almost never has KK or AQ. AA has more outs when behind, so techically, AA should be 3 bet a little more liberally, but not by much. Then again, AQ dominates villian's Q better. I don't think it matters much in practice.

ZZZ

[brazilio]

If you're unable to fold to either a river 3-bet or a turn cap then I just 3-bet the turn, but I give a lot more credence to a river 3-bet. I just 3-bet the turn here personally, calling flop backdoors is the flavor of the day for a guy like this.

[sweetjazz]

I struggle with this too. And often I try to base my decision on something specific about the player involved that makes me think one line is better than the other.

But I would point that, as far as shania goes, if it's a close decision here, I think raising and calling down is best. (I prefer on the turn than the river, as villain may fold to the river raise with just one pair, but will almost always call the turn trying to catch and then call the river too "keep you honest". This happens more often than having villain just call the river with a hand like two pair that you beat that he would have capped the turn with.) The reason it is good is that it increases the chance you will get action when you have a strong hand (like JJ or QQ on this board). Of course, you're going to have these marginal one pair hands more often than top two/set/nut flush/nut straight type hands, but if we're assuming it's close, then we want people to (1) fear check-raising us light and (2) perhaps overplay their moderately strong hands when we have a strong hand.

One other consideration...would villain ALWAYS check-raise with a J or a Q here? If so, then you must 3-bet as single pair hands are mathematically much more likely than two pair or better hands. It's tricker if the opponent is a bit thinking and only sometimes raises his one pair and draw hands, as it's hard to tell how often he is doing so without a ton of data and going through it pretty thoroughly.

Finally, as regards AA vs. AQ, you're ahead about the same amount here as KK is a miniscule possibility. So the only thing that changes is calculating redraw possibilities versus the possible two pair hands of villain. That's pretty easy to work out and makes AA a bit stronger than AQ.

[paco]

Good post Cartman.

I just have one question: if waited till river do some posters here think it would be optimal to fold to a river 3-bet? Barring a manicac, it seems almost nil that he would fire the third barrel with less than 2 pair, no?

I just ask because I too feel 'obligated' to pay this off, but usually (probably more that pot is offering) find that I'm toast.

[cartman]

[ QUOTE ]

I just have one question: if waited till river do some posters here think it would be optimal to fold to a river 3-bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are two main arguments that I am aware of for waiting until the river. First is the one you describe which is the fact that a river 3-bet is more likely to be legitimate and therefore we can fold to a 3-bet. I still have a very tough time with this one though especially with an overpair because it is not uncommon in my experience for a very aggressive opponent to 3-bet the river with just top pair for instance, especially on a low board which he thinks has missed me.

The other is that in the even the opponent is bluffing or pulling this move with a small pair, 3-betting the turn may convince him to fold when he would have followed through with a river bluff.

Cartman

[paco]

Yah, gosh its a tough situation and I guess reads have to be figured in heavily.
Without read, I'm tempted to vag it out and just call it down and be happy that I got 3 BB in in the later streets.

At a certain amount of aggro/getting out of line level though we must extract value by pushing another bet and calling down even if it escalates.

If the latter is the case, I'm more tempted to pop it on the turn becuase it seems like even the maniacs can fold to a river raise occasionally, but can't fold to a turn 3-bet even with air.

[DMBFan23]

I would virtually always call down the AQ, barring further improvement.

I am way more likely to 3-bet the AA, as I have more outs if indeed I am behind. I like to 3 bet the turn instead of the river, that way I get the bets from a semibluff now, and I get the same amount of bets in versus the made hands that I beat, assuming no one improves, with either line.

one reason to wait till the river would be to discourage river follow throughs after his turn raises if he WAS semibluffing, but I'mm calling down AQ/KQ, and I check behind hands like AK on the turn here anyway so I am not worried I am folding an unpaired hand that also may have showdown value. I'd rather discourage the turn semibluff or the turn weak-pair checkraise by 3-betting him right then, as that gains me more IMO by letting me bet for protection on the turn more relentlessly, as opposed to the benefits of a couple more free showdowns in the event I do decide to call down his turn checkraises. Percentage-wise, I fold to so many of them (I check behind the turn quite a bit where bet-call might be more appropriate) that I'd rather they happen less, as opposed to saving a bet here and there when they do happen. perhaps if I had a looser table image, I'd be better off waiting till the river more (especially since I could represent more river cards, and my call of the checkraise wouldn't narrow my range as much as it does for me currently).

of course you mentioned one merit of raising the river, and that is the vastly increased likelihood that a 3-bet is a legit hand. (SpicyF has a GREAT post on this in the archives, it's called something like 'the concept of checkraising to save bets') however, I think that capping the turn out of position will carry that same sanity-check with it, in that it will allow you to at least fold the river UI against a sane oppoennt. against an opponent who will do that with worse hands, you also lose the benefit of the river-3 bet sanity check, and would have to make the wait-to-the-river play for another reason (the metagame considerations I mentioned perhaps).

I like to mix it up with the AA as well, calling down sometimes, 3 betting sometimes. really that's dependant on how I've been playing lately, i.e. if I've been following through a lot on the turn, and especially if I've been folding to aggression, I'm more likely to punish what could easily be someone playing back. if I've been in line, then I'm more likely to just call it down.

The general concensus looks split between the turn and the river. If this is so, then it becomes a CLEAR turn raise.

No one mentioned (or at least I didn't see it) the implications of a missed bet on a semi-bluff. If villain has KT, T9 or some diamond hand, he will 100% pay on the turn, but not on the river.

Assuming everything else is equal, this factor alone should be enough to sway the play to a turn raise.

[Lurkmaster Flex]

I like pushing it on the turn also. I don't think anyone mentioned that if you improve on the river you can extract even more bets.