The turn paradox.

[Jeff W]

UTG+1 is a loose player with average aggression: 31/10/1.1 over 500 hands.

How should I handle this board w/ second pair, ace kicker?

On the one hand, I don't want to give a free to a hand like J9s(which is certainly calling the flop, but will usually fold the turn).

On the other hand, I really don't want to get raised because I may have to fold the best hand or a hand w/ 5 outs.

I'm starting to think that checking behind and calling a river bet unimproved is the best way to handle hands like this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Party 20/40 (9 handed)

Preflop: Jeff is MP2 with Ac, Td.
1 fold, UTG+1 calls, 1 fold, Jeff raises, 5 folds, UTG+1 calls.

Flop: (5.50 SB) Th, 4d, Ks (2 players)
UTG+1 checks, Jeff bets, UTG+1 calls.

Turn: (3.75 BB) 7d (2 players)
UTG+1 checks.

[pfkaok]

Yeah, the loose-avg aggressive players are kinda tough to play against in these spots. If villian is a total LAG then you can easily call down with good EV, or even check behind and know that he'll bet the river every time. and passive guys are easy too since you can safely fold to the CR.

I think the check behind vs. the type of play who you won't know what to do if he CR's you is probably best. I also try to do the checkbehind more if a large % of rivers will make it easy for me to get a value bet if villian checks. a lot of bad river cards can come here, but if a loosie checks it to you after you show weakness on turn you can probably get some calls from Ahigh, or just about any pair.

[pokerhooker]

Bet the turn; it will most likely allow you to check the river if you desire, and you've charged him to draw if he's behind.

There are way more hands you are ahead of than those which you trail; don't start checking just because you don't want to be raised. You said he's a loose player and he's shown no strength thus far. There are some opponent's whose calls you should fear; this doesn't really sound like one of them.

The board isn't even all that scary right now, it's better that you get value out of your hand now. What a shame it would be to check the turn, and then check through again when a scary Q, J, or diamond fall, only to find out that he was going to pay you off with a worse hand.

[ike]

I bet and call down if raised. I reserve checking behind on the turn for when I'm actually worried I'm behind. Getting c/red here sucks but I really don't think its happening much.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
I bet and call down if raised. I reserve checking behind on the turn for when I'm actually worried I'm behind. Getting c/red here sucks but I really don't think its happening much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, true that it probably isn't happenning all that much, but since you're saying calling down is correct, then that means you think villian is at least bluffing/semibluffing a decent % here. Also, i think this type of player will wait to turn CR here with a lot of his strongest hands, so a lot of times calling down you'll be only drawing to 0-2 outs which sucks.

However, There are a whole lot hands villian can have that are weak, 4-6 outers, so you'd prefer he paid to have to draw. But if he's just going to fold with those hands, but will likely give you a bet whether or not he hits on the river, by either inducing a bluff or a very loose call, then checking might be better. Overall though, i can see merits for either play, and i doubt that either could be THAT much better than the other. Maybe i'm missing something, but i think that this could easily be a spot good to mix up your play without sacraficing much EV either way.

[Net Warrior]

FWIW, my default play against a LAG in these situations is to induce the bluff. I've isolated him with my mediocre hand so I'll take (or lose) a small pot and move on.
OTOH, if the guy is a total fish then I'll keep betting until I hit some resistence.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, my default play against a LAG in these situations is to induce the bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they're LAGy enough though, then don't you gain more by betting, then calling down if CR'ed, since they'll CR soooo often?

[ QUOTE ]
OTOH, if the guy is a total fish then I'll keep betting until I hit some resistence.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is surely true, since the fish will always call you down with ANY piece of the board, or any weak draw.

The main goal in this type of spot(as in pretty much any poker situation) though is to induce the opponent to make the biggest mistakes, while avoiding making them yourself. So its really player dependant here, as to what types of mistakes the opponent is prone to making. If he bluff CR's too much, then its an easy bet/calldown. IF he falls for the bluff induced turn check too much then its best to check behind. tough to say what would cause this particular player to make the biggest error.

Obviously, players who don't make obvious mistakes here are the toughest to play against. so i don't know what would be optimal play vs. a perfect player is??

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, my default play against a LAG in these situations is to induce the bluff. I've isolated him with my mediocre hand so I'll take (or lose) a small pot and move on.


[/ QUOTE ]


Inducing a bluff turn checkraise + a bluff river bet > Inducing a bluff river bet.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
so i don't know what would be optimal play vs. a perfect player is??

[/ QUOTE ]

Vs. a perfect player, a mixed strategy to optimize shania is best.

[Net Warrior]

Our LAG here is said to be a loose player with average aggression. I don't think this player will bluff check raise the turn often enough to justify a bet. I play almost exclusively on line so reads are a little harder to make.

I would definitely give a maniac a chance to burn off some more chips but not someone with average aggression. This guy limped in so he's no maniac.