Check behind on this flop?

[iceman5]

$2/$4 NL...6 max

UTG limps, I raise UTG+1 to $16 with 65s. The BB reraises to $38. We both have about $450 so I call.

The pot is $82. The flop comes J73 rainbow. The BB checks. Thats strange. Do you fire out $60 or so and try to steal it if he has AK/ AQ type hand, or do you check behind and hope for a miracle 4 to hit the turn?

[KaneKungFu123]

[ QUOTE ]
$2/$4 NL...6 max

UTG limps, I raise UTG+1 to $16 with 65s. The BB reraises to $38. We both have about $450 so I call.

The pot is $82. The flop comes J73 rainbow. The BB checks. Thats strange. Do you fire out $60 or so and try to steal it if he has AK/ AQ type hand, or do you check behind and hope for a miracle 4 to hit the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]

pot it.

[muzungu]

iceman-

This type of line usually means a monster or nothing. If villain is weak/straightforward, I will consider betting, but if he is tricky I definitely check.

Here, I lean toward checking for the following reasons:

1. Note that if you hit your 4 and he is being tricky, you have a decent chance of stacking him.

2. A weak/straightforward player (the type that might c/f AK here) is less likely to 3-bet AK in the first place, so that discounts that situation.

3. In the situations where he has AK (the ones you would like to bet) you might be able to win a showdown by pairing your 5 or 6. So that adds a bit more equity to checking behind.

4. People at these stakes don't 3-bet light, and I can't recall seeing a 3-bet followed by a flop check/fold.

That seems like enough reasons.

-muz

[punter11235]

I would check.
When we learn about poker strategy for the first time there is always a lot of talk about "giving free cards". "You should bet because you cant let your opponent to take a free card to beat you" etc. What often happen is that some opponents start to bet with everything and people never receive these free cards. After a while they totally forget how to exploit passive play and starts betting the hand for their "tricky opponents" every time they check.
I think this is very wrong. If opponent is not capable of betting his strong hands dont do it for him. Just take this free card and exploit the most basic of all mistakes...

Best wishes

EDIT: If you are up passive donk who always check-fold his unimproved overcards "cause you never chase in no-limit holdem" dont worry. You will take it from him on the turn.

[iceman5]

I bet $60 when he checked to me. Kane said to "pot it". I normally bet 3/4 pot on my continuation bets (not full pot), so I bet $60 instead of full pot.

I really wished I had checked behind when he check raised me. He only check raised the minimum to $120 though so I called. The turn was a 4 and it was lights out for his QQ.

He bet $100 and I raised all in which he called. Obviously he wasnt putting me on 65, but you would think maybe AA / KK or JJ would worry him with that action?

[technologic]

[ QUOTE ]
$2/$4 NL...6 max

UTG limps, I raise UTG+1 to $16 with 65s. The BB reraises to $38. We both have about $450 so I call.

The pot is $82. The flop comes J73 rainbow. The BB checks. Thats strange. Do you fire out $60 or so and try to steal it if he has AK/ AQ type hand, or do you check behind and hope for a miracle 4 to hit the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]

if you estimate average time you hit on the turn on average you'll get the pot plus another psb from villain, your equity in checking is around +15.

if he folds 60% of the time you fire a PSB, you gain around the same amt when you bluff.

i guess you should go with your gut in thinking how likely villain will fold to a bet on the flop.