K8s -- If I played ANY street correctly, let me know

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
Bad cr, you're probably behind to someone and you'd rather get everyone to call and build a pot, with the aggressor to your left. If you hit, you can c/r the field for two bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

I figured I was almost certainly behind, but I liked my draw.

FWIW, if there were an actual field, I think the flop checkraise would have more merit than it does in this 3-way pot. I'm closing the action if I call, so checkraising is the only way to get people to call again.

Getting 3-bet in a more multiway pot would still not be a particularly good thing, though. That 3-bet might drive people away (though that could at least have the benefit of improving my chances of winning).

I didn't really expect the 3-bet, though I probably should have.

I'm not used to 5/10 yet.

[weevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bad cr, you're probably behind to someone and you'd rather get everyone to call and build a pot, with the aggressor to your left. If you hit, you can c/r the field for two bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

I figured I was almost certainly behind, but I liked my draw.

FWIW, if there were an actual field, I think the flop checkraise would have more merit than it does in this 3-way pot. I'm closing the action if I call, so checkraising is the only way to get people to call again.

Getting 3-bet in a more multiway pot would still not be a particularly good thing, though. That 3-bet might drive people away (though that could at least have the benefit of improving my chances of winning).

I didn't really expect the 3-bet, though I probably should have.

I'm not used to 5/10 yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there are four in the pot on the flop. You're probably only clearly vulnerable to the two nondiamond aces. So, if you're ahead, you're likely to stay ahead, so if CO doesn't bet, it's not horrible. And since he was the PF aggressor, he'll usually bet. And him 3betting shouldn't be surprising either I don't think, which further kills your action.

EDIT, er, I thought you had a pair for some reason along with the draw. I don't think you're taking this pot down on a semibluff, so the same logic applies I think.

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
EDIT, er, I thought you had a pair for some reason along with the draw. I don't think you're taking this pot down on a semibluff, so the same logic applies I think.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I had a pair and a flush draw, I'd be much less inclined to check-call the flop.

[tyler_cracker]

I don't understand the river check-raise? (Nick, it kind of looks like you don't either, given your comment about it, but other people have said they like it). Villain has to bet this >50% of the time for us to get more value out of going for a check-raise than by just betting out. Clearly, Villain was afraid of that king (though it looks like the fact that we checked twice quelled his fear), but isn't he going to be afraid of the diamonds a lot of the time?

I mean, i'm glad it worked out for you and everything, but i know that if i have AQ or AJ i'm checking behind on this river an awful lot.

[weevil]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand the river check-raise? (Nick, it kind of looks like you don't either, given your comment about it, but other people have said they like it). Villain has to bet this >50% of the time for us to get more value out of going for a check-raise than by just betting out. Clearly, Villain was afraid of that king (though it looks like the fact that we checked twice quelled his fear), but isn't he going to be afraid of the diamonds a lot of the time?

I mean, i'm glad it worked out for you and everything, but i know that if i have AQ or AJ i'm checking behind on this river an awful lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Against an unkown with this action and this board, I think most villians are betting any reasonable holding and calling the CR. They might not be calling a river bet. Seems fairly clear river cr, but maybe I'm wrong.

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand the river check-raise? (Nick, it kind of looks like you don't either, given your comment about it, but other people have said they like it). Villain has to bet this >50% of the time for us to get more value out of going for a check-raise than by just betting out. Clearly, Villain was afraid of that king (though it looks like the fact that we checked twice quelled his fear), but isn't he going to be afraid of the diamonds a lot of the time?

I mean, i'm glad it worked out for you and everything, but i know that if i have AQ or AJ i'm checking behind on this river an awful lot.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I posted this hand, I thought the river checkraise was embarrassingly bad.

The consensus seems to say otherwise, but I'm not convinced just yet.

I'd explain, but I think I'll wait and see if there are other comments first.

[Nick C]

CO 3-bet my river checkraise.

I cursed and called.

That, at least, is correct, right?

[ QUOTE ]
CO 3-bet my river checkraise.

I cursed and called.

That, at least, is correct, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
He had Ad9d or 7d? I think I call, but I'm really tempted to cap, cuz imo only the Ad flush w/ a 9 kicker makes sense. Would he raise w/ a 7 or worse kicker? I guess we don't know, since he's new.

[shant]

I like the river checkraise because he sure played this hand like a diamond draw and having my bet/3-bet capped on the river is going to suck. He's going to bet any pair after being checked to twice, and pay off the raise, and if he has the nuts, 4-bets don't go in on the river.

Did he have ATs or A9s? I don't see what hand 3-bets this flop and checks the turn other than the diamonds.

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see what hand 3-bets this flop and checks the turn other than the diamonds.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's the case, then why checkraise the river? (There aren't really many diamond hands available that I'm beating.)

I really felt owned after this hand.