$109s - JJ Hand

[wuwei]

[ QUOTE ]
I would actually min-raise here. I think it will shut villain down almost always if he does not have the flush and get you a cheap showdown. If he keeps coming at you, you can be very certain that he has the flush and you can get away from the hand with a weaker, but playable stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's pretty much what I was thinking.

[Matt R.]

I'm replying to my own post since I changed my mind after reading this thread.

I'm used to playing the $22's where villain's betting in a hand like this does not necessarily mean he has the flush. I would like the min-raise in a lower buy-in game to freeze the opponent and cheaply find out what he has. However, in the $109's, I can see how this betting pattern is usually a flush as you can't expect a player to overplay one pair like you can in the $22's. So, I think a fold is in order on the turn without a read.

As far as raising the flop goes, I don't mind the call as there are a lot of turn cards you don't want to see, and the preflop raiser has yet to act. I like to wait until the turn to raise in a lot of these situations because that one extra card (and the betting that goes on) usually gives you a lot of information as to what they're holding and gives you a lot better idea of your chances of winning at showdown.

[johnnybeef]

Without reads, I will usually call the turn and fold to a river bet.

[Bonafone]

[ QUOTE ]
Without reads, I will usually call the turn and fold to a river bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this line unless the river bet is ridiculously small.

[kyro]

I raise the flop to see if I'm behind QQ-AA or AK-Aq.

[microbet]

I would have raised preflop and on the flop, but...

At the turn, unless he was a known tricky player, I would say to myself, "self, he either leads out on the draw or leads out when he hits, but he doesn't lead out when he draws and when he hits" and I'd probably go for one of those calling him down and letting him continue to bluff plays.

[archangel]

[ QUOTE ]
"self, he either leads out on the draw or leads out when he hits, but he doesn't lead out when he draws and when he hits"

[/ QUOTE ]

why would you think that? why would you rule out the semi-bluff followed by a continuation/value bet when the draw hits?

[microbet]

I wouldn't rule it out. I would just bet against it. That's another reason for just calling him down though at this point because he probably won't try and stack you when he has the nuts.

[freemoney]

yeah i agree with microbet i think jj is def ahead of villians range of hands.

[ChuckNorris]

[ QUOTE ]
At the turn, unless he was a known tricky player, I would say to myself, "self, he either leads out on the draw or leads out when he hits, but he doesn't lead out when he draws and when he hits" and I'd probably go for one of those calling him down and letting him continue to bluff plays.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good point.. Really got me thinking. I suck at postflop play as I'm just a sit'n'go bot. Do you play your draws like that? I feel like it's too likely for villain to happily check behind on the turn if you don't bet. But at the 109's people probably are more aggressive, and I guess they should bet the turn often after being checked to. And letting them see the river with your nut flush isn't that bad. Fascinating [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]