AK as an isolator, against an isolator

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, it may lead to suspicion, but now chance you had of having him fold .... his QK / AQ overcards is over.

[/ QUOTE ]

why do you want those hands to fold

Yikes, good point. Well, I don't want his QK or his AQ to fold. But, I think that from the looks of it, he has a small pair, and this is the last time you're convincing him to fold that. And, even if he has air, you're not quite sure what kind of air he has given his aggression, so unless the river is very safe (e.g., not a paint), you're quite confused here too. So, in a sense, I want him to fold his air as well, as any air can turn into something good on the river.

[lil feller]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sure, it may lead to suspicion, but now chance you had of having him fold .... his QK / AQ overcards is over.

[/ QUOTE ]

why do you want those hands to fold

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't. Betting the turn gives those hand hero has dominated a chance to incorrectly call, and the hands that here is behind to a chance to fold due to overrepresentation on the flop. Not betting the turn essentialy flips hero's hand over, and makes it impossible for the villain to make a mistake on the river (not to mention if he had a 3outer, he just got a free crack at it).

I think a turn bet is a must, unless the villian will c/r with a worse hand and after all the strength hero has shown, I don't see that happening.

lf

[Josh W]

The problem with betting the turn, as some have pointed out, is that if UTG+1 will checkraise with a hand like JJ,I should call. However, putting two bets in on the turn is silly and unnecessary.

Now, before you hit "reply" and try to refute this, understand I said "the problem with betting the turn". That is, THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH BETTING THE TURN. However, I do not mean to state that those problems outweigh the benefits.

If I had to do it again, I think I'd check the turn and fold the river to his bet.

To those who say bet the turn, what do you do if he checkraises?

Thanks,

Josh

[lil feller]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem with betting the turn, as some have pointed out, is that if UTG+1 will checkraise with a hand like JJ,I should call. However, putting two bets in on the turn is silly and unnecessary.

Now, before you hit "reply" and try to refute this, understand I said "the problem with betting the turn". That is, THERE ARE PROBLEMS WITH BETTING THE TURN. However, I do not mean to state that those problems outweigh the benefits.

If I had to do it again, I think I'd check the turn and fold the river to his bet.

To those who say bet the turn, what do you do if he checkraises?

Thanks,

Josh

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Josh,

I'm in the "bet the turn" camp. While I agree that getting c/r on the turn would suck I think the benefits of a bet outweigh the risks associated with a call.

Before we start delving into situations, lets look at the bet conversation. His flop c/r indicates strength, especially since he intentionally c/r the field, but that doesn't always mean pair strength. He knows that you know that he's been raising lite, and he knows that you're 3bet range is also lite. I'd c/r w/ AK or AQ on that flop and would be doing so for value and the villians stats are almost identical to mine. Your flop 3 bet says "I want the hitchiker out. I don't want to wait till the turn to raise. I have a pair and I think its bigger than yours." At this point he's probably thinking you have TT-QQ (maybe KK).

Now, given all that. If you bet the turn he might call with hands that have only 3 outs (AK, AQ, KQ...) because he thinks he has 6 outs against your TT. If you bet the turn he might also fold hands that currently have you beat (77,88, and maybe TT) because he thinks he only has 2 outs. I guess my point is that had you played the hand like you had AK, then you'd never have any chance of getting a better hand to fold, but you didn't. You played the hand like you had a good PP, and might get a medium PP to fold.

I think the combined likelyhood that he calls when he shouldn't and folds when he shouldn't outweighs the likelyhood that you get c/r on the turn. I would be surprised if he would c/r this turn, after the other action, with anything less then KK, and I would probably fold to a c/r.

lf

[Josh W]

Lil -

Very nice response, thank you.

It's really interesting, on the turn, I think because if I bet he could really do any one of the four things:

Call hands he should call
Fold hands he should fold
Call hands he should fold
Fold hands he should call.

I guess my thinking was he'd do the first two a lot more than he'd do the second two. I may very well be wrong, and given the majority of responses, I guess I may. I think that my aforementioned thoughts along with the ensuing confusion that will arise if I get checkraised made me check. I don't like tough decisions, so I tried to avoid one, by checking.

As a bit of an aside....

I'm very un-results-oriented. Lots of times people will bet (in like a 3 way pot) here, and AQ will fold. Then, when the Q comes on the river, their AK beats the lone remaining opponent (say, 78 or some such draw). AQ moans that he layed down the winner, and the AK thinks he played the hand well.

But that's only results oriented thinking that makes the AK think he played the hand well. In reality, in a 10ish BB pot, you WANT people calling with their three outers. In fact, if they are going to fold their three outer (but will ever bluff or payoff on the river), you specifically DON'T WANT THEM TO FOLD. Getting them to fold is BAD PLAY, even though the results make it **LOOK** like a good play.

I don't think very many people look at it this way or understand it as such (and please note, this is an 'aside', and doesn't necessarily pertain here). It is possible to 'slowplay' an unimproved AK (no pair). It really is a monster in some spots.

Back to the hand at hand (I crack myself up!!). I think, the more I think about it, his flop checkraise is going to be a pair a very high percentage of the time. Maybe T9. Maybe 77. Maybe JJ. Given that he may checkraise any of these on the turn (if he reads my threebet as a "get outta my pot, straggler" bet), I still like checking the turn. But against a 17/8 player who very likely has a pair on the flop, I think I can give up on the river without paying off.

Again, this is largely because he may checkraise any pair on the turn. I guess it's the "check behind with position when you have outs on the turn" check.

Sorry that this is so rambling.

Blah blah blah,

Josh

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're going to call the river bet I think you're better off betting the turn because of the slim, minute chance he might decide your 3-bet PF and 3bet on the flop means he's beat and he gets rid of 55. If he c/r you on the turn again, you can fold to it right there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel kinda dirty quoting a player much better than I but I really was thinking the same thing. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Whatever he has, he probably has outs that he'll fold if he is unpaired.

Krishan

[Schneids]

Right. I think your turn check is fine if you're going to fold UI to a river bet, since I agree his c/r is at least a pair like 98% of the time.

[lil feller]

[ QUOTE ]
It's really interesting, on the turn, I think because if I bet he could really do any one of the four things:

Call hands he should call
Fold hands he should fold
Call hands he should fold
Fold hands he should call.

I guess my thinking was he'd do the first two a lot more than he'd do the second two. I may very well be wrong, and given the majority of responses, I guess I may. I think that my aforementioned thoughts along with the ensuing confusion that will arise if I get checkraised made me check. I don't like tough decisions, so I tried to avoid one, by checking.


[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly a valid analysis, but I think you might be underestimating how often he folds a crappy pair. Keep in mind he might also have a 6 out hand, like QJ or something, that should call if he knew what you had, but you would rather get a fold from.

[ QUOTE ]
But that's only results oriented thinking that makes the AK think he played the hand well. In reality, in a 10ish BB pot, you WANT people calling with their three outers. In fact, if they are going to fold their three outer (but will ever bluff or payoff on the river), you specifically DON'T WANT THEM TO FOLD.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true, but you also don't want them to draw for free when they would have called anyway. Slowplaying is only necessary when your opponent(s) are drawing slim-to-dead AND wouldn't have called a bet. Rarely do these two circumstances co-exist. In this particural hand, any 3 outer (especially AQ) is certainly calling a turn bet.

[ QUOTE ]
I think, the more I think about it, his flop checkraise is going to be a pair a very high percentage of the time. Maybe T9. Maybe 77. Maybe JJ. Given that he may checkraise any of these on the turn (if he reads my threebet as a "get outta my pot, straggler" bet), I still like checking the turn. But against a 17/8 player who very likely has a pair on the flop, I think I can give up on the river without paying off.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the range. I think, however, if he's aware of your stats (and he probably is) he isn't c/r the turn without a hand that has you at 3 outs or less, and you can safely fold to the c/r. As far as the river, i'd be inclined to call. The combined information value (iso-standards up front and c/r standards vs the field) and potential showdown value (you did check the turn...) would make it worth the BB to see his hand, expecting to lose most of the time.

interesting hand to be sure.

lf