QJs openlimps

That makes sense. I've always thought I was losing value by not betting. I do sometimes get a busted draw to bluff, but rarely does the better hand just follow my check with a check (which I believe is what I was hoping for)

[quoteI could see an arguement for check/calling if you thought he would bet a weak Q or T but not call with them. Or if he is likely to bluff a busted draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is the main reason why i check/called the river, i figure often:
a) he checks through a better hand he would call with if we bet
b) he bets a worse hand that he would fold if we bet


and results: he flips KhJh and MHING

[Redd]

[ QUOTE ]
If you bet the turn, you have to bet the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I would bet the river in this hand (and most hands, FWIW), this statement isn't true in general.

[ QUOTE ]

You're not clearing up any outs, you're not folding a better hand and you've got zero fold equity on another draw. The only reason to bet the turn is for value.
Fine. You bet and are called.
So what's changed on the river?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's changed is that Villain may no longer pay off with a drawing hand on the river if we bet, and Villain will be less likely to check because checking doesn't get him a free card on the river. The big difference on the turn in general is that turn aggression forces drawing hands to pay the worst of each bet going in, where river bets don't afford the aggressor that luxury.

[ QUOTE ]
On the turn, there is ZERO overcards that can come to your pair. If you are ahead, your opponent is drawing to two or 3outs (ignoring the BDFD).

[/ QUOTE ]
Villain could have thought he had 8 outs on the turn with his own J that will bluff the river as a last ditch attempt. Villain can actually have between 4 and 7 outs here pretty often too.

[crownjules]

Definitely should be open-raising QJs from MP2.

Without any other reads, I play it the same otherwise. Button could just be bluffing the river when you show some weakness, or he could have been calling with a king.

[ QUOTE ]
[quoteI could see an arguement for check/calling if you thought he would bet a weak Q or T but not call with them. Or if he is likely to bluff a busted draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is the main reason why i check/called the river, i figure often:
a) he checks through a better hand he would call with if we bet
b) he bets a worse hand that he would fold if we bet



[/ QUOTE ]

So he checks a better hand, but bets a worse one [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

My thinking goes like this. Abuse me if you wish.

He didn't raise my flop bet: He's passive with a better hand. He has a week hand. He's on a draw.

I bet the turn because I think the combination of 2 + 3 is more likely. He doesn't raise, which strengthens my case for 1 or 2 + 3.
I bet the river because the combination of 2 + 3 is more likley and I have no fear of being punished for 1.

If he calls the turn with a weak hand, he'll generally call the river and will more often than not take the free showdown with a weak made hand.

I also find it hard to believe that any K checked to on the river will check behind.

If you bet, you just might get QJ or a weak K to fold (however slim).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you bet the turn, you have to bet the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

While I would bet the river in this hand (and most hands, FWIW), this statement isn't true in general.


[/ QUOTE ]
I was only talking about this hand.

[ QUOTE ]
Villain can actually have between 4 and 7 outs here pretty often too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't think of a single (reasonable) holding for villian that has between 4 and 7 outs.

[milesdyson]

AT

[Shillx]

Why did you not raise preflop??? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Yeah yeah preflop is dumb and all, but it is hard to comment on postflop because the whole hand plays differently if you raise preflop. Maybe you even take down the blinds and we laugh when the dealer rabbit hunts a A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] T [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] flop. [img]/images/graemlins/ooo.gif[/img]

Edited to say that river theory is very easy. Every better hand gets bet and many worse hands get checked behind. On the flip side...many worse hands that will call will not bet. So river theory in these spots is to check/fold or bet (provided that the villian is loose).

If the villian is a savage bluffer or whatever then your line is okay. In general though you should tend to bet/fold rather then check/call when it is obvious that the other dude isn't on a draw.

Brad

Sorry I'm drunk and sound like it.

[ QUOTE ]
AT

[/ QUOTE ]
Damn it you're right

Double EDIT: I nearly said you were wrong [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[Felipe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you bet the turn, you have to bet the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

why?

[/ QUOTE ]

What's changed since the turn?

[/ QUOTE ]

Does the fact that he called flop and turn bets, make you a bit worried? I usually check/call here because of this.

[/ QUOTE ]


What I'm trying to say:

On the turn, there is ZERO overcards that can come to your pair. If you are ahead, your opponent is drawing to two or 3outs (ignoring the BDFD).
You're not clearing up any outs, you're not folding a better hand and you've got zero fold equity on another draw. The only reason to bet the turn is for value.
Fine. You bet and are called.
So what's changed on the river?

You get raised by a K here never and you're going to call a bet anyway. You should bet. You'll get called by worse Q's, T's and there is a small chance you fold a weak K.


I could see an arguement for check/calling if you thought he would bet a weak Q or T but not call with them. Or if he is likely to bluff a busted draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like your analysis here kwaz. FWIW I think the vil had a king.