Failed screw play

[mmcd]

In this particular type of spot (A-high ragged board, you have the lead out of position against a decent opponent and your flop bet was called), it's MUCH better to wait until the river to get the checkraise in.

[flawless_victory]

this fold is truly horrible.
like, just laughable.

[Shillx]

I would usually bet-bet-check/raise AK and AQ here. I would also pick another hand to do it with (KQs or red TT or something) so that he is put in a tough spot on the river with AJ or AT (or even AQ). I don't really like checking the turn against the guy you describe if he will take a WA/WB line against you too often. If he will always bet a worse hand on the turn, then this play begins to make more sense. But again you have to be capable of making this move with a hand worse then a pair of aces.

It also depends a lot on what you will do with a worse hand. If you will always fold TT to a turn bet (but put a bet in on the river), then it makes no sense for him to bet the turn with Ax (obviously he would have to do it sometimes but certainly not everytime). If you will calldown with KK-TT then he should bet the turn everytime here with Ax.

[MAxx]

What is the purpose of going for a turn cr here?

I dont understand it either. I dont really understand this play in any context though.. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[nfscreech]

This is a good play vs good players.

Since we will occassionally check the turn OOP with nothing, we have to occassionally check/raise it with a strong hand too. This way, our observant opponents cannot peel the flop with weak holdings, and then bet the turn with impunity when we check to them.

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
I would usually bet-bet-check/raise AK and AQ here. I would also pick another hand to do it with (KQs or red TT or something)

[/ QUOTE ]

Better to balance with a hand like JTs that can't win if the river goes bet/call or check/bet/call.

[mex78753]

this is a bad fold because alot of players' ego's will get in the way and they'll 3 bet u with a flush draw, worse ace, or even a pp because they're mad they fell for the play. I've done it plenty of times myself.

If you call down and lose you still get the benefit of telling your opponent you will check/raise strong hands on the turn.

[Nietzsche]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a good play vs good players.

Since we will occassionally check the turn OOP with nothing, we have to occassionally check/raise it with a strong hand too. This way, our observant opponents cannot peel the flop with weak holdings, and then bet the turn with impunity when we check to them.

[/ QUOTE ]
Metagame reasons is another factor, yes. But as another poster mentioned the screw play is way better against a LAG than a TAG. A TAG is capable of folding decent but worse hands he would otherwise have called down and will check behind more often than a LAG when he is not ahead.

I actually now think that the decision to use the screw play in this situation against this opponent is worse than the fold, which I don't think is that bad, still not sure it is even a mistake.

[DMBFan23]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is a good play vs good players.

Since we will occassionally check the turn OOP with nothing, we have to occassionally check/raise it with a strong hand too. This way, our observant opponents cannot peel the flop with weak holdings, and then bet the turn with impunity when we check to them.

[/ QUOTE ]
Metagame reasons is another factor, yes. But as another poster mentioned the screw play is way better against a LAG than a TAG. A TAG is capable of folding decent but worse hands he would otherwise have called down and will check behind more often than a LAG when he is not ahead.

I actually now think that the decision to use the screw play in this situation against this opponent is worse than the fold, which I don't think is that bad, still not sure it is even a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

the screwplay for value is a better play against LAGs because they will bet more hands for you. but the screwplay for shania by TAGs [censored]s with me hardcore. for example, if (as the assumption always goes) I'll fold so many hands he beats or check behind, then he should do it with weaker hands or with draws that want free cards. then I catch on. So then he has to do it with strong hands or I'll just 3-ball his ass. but now I can fold more cause he's got the goods. so he cathces on. then he can do it with draws, or as a bluff. but now I'm calling or 3-betting or checking behind and he can force me into some pretty big errors. helps to nullify the positional disadvantage.