Raise, cbet, check behind, then c/call

[raistlinx]

A lot of hands come up where you raise PF with a good hand, and hit a good top pair on the flop (or have an over pair QQ or better). 3/4 to pot sized c-bet on the flop and get 1 caller. Say we have position and we check behind him on the turn for pot control. Now he bet's into us on the river...

My question is how big a bet are we willing to call in the cases of:
(1) a scare card came completing a flush or bringing an over card (K or A)
(2) a blank came

I know it is a question specific to the board, but in general, are we calling more than 1/2 the pot if a scare card comes? Are we willing to call the pot if a blank comes?

Post some examples, depends on to many factors.

[raistlinx]

I'm talking about a concept here not a specific hand. Sorry, I thought I had made that clear in my OP

It`s a mistake to check the turn with draws out. If villain X just called your continuation bet on the flop and checked to you on the turn you must bet to punish the draws and for value. He usualy has a weaker hand or is drawing. So the mistake is on the turn and not the river. However, if you do check behind on the turn for whatever reason, it`s comes down to your read.

1/2 pot (getting 3 to 1) call if you consider your ahead at least 1 time out of 3.

potsize call if your think your ahead 2 times out of three.

[Sir Winalot]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm talking about a concept here not a specific hand. Sorry, I thought I had made that clear in my OP

[/ QUOTE ]
It's so wide an area that it's hard to answer it accurately. However, I'd usually bet turn and check behind on river.

[raistlinx]

Again, I wasn't looking for an accurate answer to a specific problem but people's general thoughts on "when you check behind for pot control on the turn how big a bet are you usually willing to call on the river"

Specific hands can be used to refine a general concept for a given situation, but you have to start with the general concept.

[Sir Winalot]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, I wasn't looking for an accurate answer to a specific problem but people's general thoughts on "when you check behind for pot control on the turn how big a bet are you usually willing to call on the river"

Specific hands can be used to refine a general concept for a given situation, but you have to start with the general concept.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is 2+2. 2+2'ers are lazy.

[Fiksdal]

Raising preflop, betting flop and checking the turn, is the line we usually take when we miss the flop.

The good thing about doing the same line when you actually hit, is that your play becomes harder to read. Also, it might induce river bluffs where we wouldn't have gotten any value had we just bet turn.

Our opponents in uNL games are usually pretty stupid though. Meta game is not very important here. The best idea is generally to just bet strong hands against them, and look for value wherever we can.

[raistlinx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Again, I wasn't looking for an accurate answer to a specific problem but people's general thoughts on "when you check behind for pot control on the turn how big a bet are you usually willing to call on the river"

Specific hands can be used to refine a general concept for a given situation, but you have to start with the general concept.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is 2+2. 2+2'ers are lazy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice LOL

[RAHZero]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, I wasn't looking for an accurate answer to a specific problem but people's general thoughts on "when you check behind for pot control on the turn how big a bet are you usually willing to call on the river"

Specific hands can be used to refine a general concept for a given situation, but you have to start with the general concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

The answer is that it depends. There are so many factors that affect your decision here, such as stack sizes, board texture, the strength of your hand, your opponents tendencies, your image, etc, that to give a general answer here would be misleading and probably detrimental to most uNLers play, since rigid rules are not the way to think about No Limit poker.

[raistlinx]

That's weak. People talk in generalities all the time. "It depends" is way overused here. Of course the specific instance "depends" but we talk in terms of concepts all the time when dealing with a typical or "standard" play.

I'm sorry, but no it does not depend when discussing a particular concept in life or in poker, it's a cop out that people use when asked about a specific question.

This however was not. I was simply asking peoples thoughts on the given idea. Call it a range you would "typically" call if you will. No one is looking for a rigid rule to apply without thinking.

For example, if a new player asked "How much should I raise PF first in from MP?" We might say "3-4x a little more if the table is loose" We would not however say "It depends" (period)

In the idea I was asking about an answer something like "Well I think if no obvious draw ame in I would call maybe upto 3/4 the pot, but if it looked like he might have hit or an overcard came I'd probably only call 1/2 the pot at most. On the other hand if an A came that also brought the flush came I'm not calling much at all because I'm very likely now beat". THAT is an answer. "It depends, too many factors to consider" is weak.

Sorry to rant, just annoyed at people who don't want to take the time to answer the question but take the time to say "It depends" instead.

[wallywojo]

This is why there is so much more skill in NL than the other types of poker.

Sometimes I will call a pot-sized bet, sometimes you can see a value bet for what it is and fold. Your opponents play makes up a large part of this equation as does the board.

LAGTARDS try to use any scare card or shown weakness to steal a pot when they can.

If a rock is calling down, then leads the river, usually you can see they improved or had something very good on an earlier street and decides it is time to get full value.

Unfortunately, you are not going to get a clear answer because there are far too many variables in this equation.

pot size + stacks + player styles + previous hands that contributed to their image or your image + tilt + board texture = size of bet to call

[EMc]

Well, unfortunately it does depend. Ex:

Villain is a friggin nit:

6 handed, 100bb stacks.

Folds to villain, he limps, you raise KQo, he calls. (HU)

Flop:
K 7 2

He checks, you standard CB, he calls

Turn:
x

Checks

River:
x

Villain bets 20bb.

You can change any of the following and the best way to play it changes:

Villain is tilting, villain is a bluff-monkey, villain overvalues marginal hands, villain only bets the nuts, The flop is KJT, The flop is K89, the flop is Kxx suited, it all depends. If poker could be played by a formula, its wouldnt be as fun or as profitable.

Take it from the veterans here, its the best way to learn about is to post hands and reply to hands.

[prodonkey]

Well I use this play a lot.. BUT, it depends on who i'm against and the specific board. Against straightforward people I bet a lot.. they call if they are drawing, and most won't try to get really tricky. I use this move most often vs lagtards who try to get really tricky, raising you with air, floating you.. etc. If I check the turn usually i'm willing to call pot on the river, but this also depends on the card and and my read and the guys river agression.

If I've got AJ and the flop comes 89J with 2 diamonds, and the Td comes on the river you've made it really tough on yourself.

Now if I've got AQ and the flop is Q33 and and another 3 comes on the river you've got a totally diff situation.

[raistlinx]

Yes but you can talk about standard plays, which of course get changed for things like tilting or likes to bluff or any read really. Call these these playe the "I'm usually..." plays.

If a person posts a general question on a concept, people can post responses with an example or two themselves.

I'm thinking the guy who said the posters here were lazy maybe had it spot on.

[EMc]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes but you can talk about standard plays, which of course get changed for things like tilting or likes to bluff or any read really. Call these these playe the "I'm usually..." plays.

If a person posts a general question on a concept, people can post responses with an example or two themselves.

I'm thinking the guy who said the posters here were lazy maybe had it spot on.

[/ QUOTE ]

But realize that by posting an example that is not the general concept as you were talking about. Thats why its best to post hands and reply. Nearly everything of value you need to learn from poker is done by experience.

[Vyse]

What an earlier post said was correct: you bet the turn if there's a draw out. Check calling and checking again is usually the line of a draw. You bet the turn and if he calls it, and the river is a blank, then you check behind. If the river would complete a flush and he bets, it depends: is he a LAG, a calling station, a TAG, a maniac, and finally, on how big he bet. If it's a 1/2 bet I'm calling it most of the time assuming zero reads on villain; of course, zero reads on villain is an anomaly, so you're going to have some kind of read and you decide whether or not to follow it.

It's simple: You call any bet amount as long as you think you will profit off it. EMc is right, just post the specific hands...

[raistlinx]

I was just meaning this forum doesn't have to JUST be a post hand get comments format. People should be able to discuss and debate ideas as well.

[wallywojo]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm thinking the guy who said the posters here were lazy maybe had it spot on.

[/ QUOTE ]

i knew Jack Kennedy and you sir are no Jack Kennedy. Don't run for office anytime soon with those thoughts...or actually maybe you should.

If I was lazy I would have posted two words that stated "yeah, call it" but I pointed out why it is not that simplistic of a situation and the nuances that make it go one way or the other. There was a post in either the SSNL stickies or an Ed Miller book. It states that if a situation is marginal then going either way will not cause great harm. I think the bet/check behind/ call river bet will never get you into trouble when we are talking about top pair/overpair hands but if you want to go beyond that then calculating all the variables as many have listed are required.

[EMc]

[ QUOTE ]
I was just meaning this forum doesn't have to JUST be a post hand get comments format. People should be able to discuss and debate ideas as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with that, but ideas are best represented and started with hands, and concepts are more along the lines of Reverse Implied Odds, Implied Odds, etc.

[RAHZero]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was just meaning this forum doesn't have to JUST be a post hand get comments format. People should be able to discuss and debate ideas as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with that, but ideas are best represented and started with hands, and concepts are more along the lines of Reverse Implied Odds, Implied Odds, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Pot control is a concept, but it's applications depend entirely on the situation. If you want a more concrete explanation, then I'll say that against some players I won't call ANY bet against the river, against others, I'll call anything up to and including a push. For example, I raised A8s on the button recently, got called by a LAGfish in the BB. Flop came J8x, I c-bet 3/4 of the pot, he called. I checked the J on the turn for pot control, he fired out an overbet on the blank river (about 1.25 x pot), I called, his K5o was no good. That type of play is entirely read dependent. Even against a lot of LAGs I'll fold there, however I had a read that this specific guy likes to float c-bets whether in or OOP, and is bluff-happy when shown weakness. If that was a nit, I'd turbomuck on the river. There are so many variables that determine what you do in these types of situations. However, I generally like to exhibit pot control in the form of a check-behind on the turn with a fairly strong hand against an aggressive player, in which case I'm usually calling any bet on a safe river. But yeah, it does depend, and acting like it doesn't is ignoring the beauty of NL hold'em and what makes it such a difficult game to master.

[uuser]

"Not to bet for pot control" is HIGHLY OVERRATED in micro-nl games. After a couple of hands you can spot the calling machines from your table, who will call turn bet with any pair and any draw (including gutshot + 1 overcard etc.). That's the reason you can't check turn for pot control, because you have to get value from these hands, and you want your villains to draw their hands, but you dont want them to draw them with infinite odds.

Also, when you bet the flop and the turn with a strong holding, you can either check behind if in position or check/call as check will very often induce a bluff on the river, if villain misses. Of course there are times you may also check/fold river OOP, if you really think your villain is ahead, but that's why you don't want to play pots OOP in general.

In any case your desicions will be a lot easier if you bet the turn against loose passive calling machines (most of the opponents in micro-games).

[KurtSF]

Here is a answer based completely on theory, and including assumtions that will not fly in a real game, but should provide a complete answer to your question.

You should fold to any bet that makes you total EV for the hand negative. Let's say you have AA against A8s preflop in a NL100 game with $100 effective stacks. You raise from MP for $4, villain calls from the button, everyone else folds. There's a $9.5 pot and you have 87% equity = $8.27 EV, and you risked $4 to get here, meaning you "made" $4.27 sklansky-bucks.

So flop comes A and two random cards of his suit. You bet $8 and he calls. You put in $8 of $16 on this street with 71% equity, making you another $3.36 sklansky bucks for a total of $7.63.

Turn comes some lowcard brick, you bet $24 and villain calls. $24 of $48 with 81% equity, making $6.88 more, for a total of $14.05 sklansky-bucks on the hand.

A heart falls on the river and doesn't pair the board. Villain now has 100% equity, and you have "made" $14.05 so far. Even being 0% to win, you can call a bet of $14 on the end here and WIN LONG TERM as played. If you call any more than that, you will lose long term.

Now then, twists:

(1) This ignores implied odds. On the river for instance, villain still has TP and might call a small valuebet from you on the end, and when looked at in totality that scenario increases the $$$ you can call on the end and "win log term". Also, villain could make his nut flush on the end with a card that pairs the board, in which case you are getting his stack, again increasing the $$$ you can call and win long term.

(2) You, of course, don't know what the villain has. Therefore, you don't know how many sklanky-bucks you have "banked" over the course of the hand, and therefore don't know how much you can call on the end.

For example, if after the turn action in the example above you figure villain had either TPTK, a flushdraw, or an underset with equal liklihood. Let's say that you banked (I didn't do the math here but I hope you get the idea) $14 against the FD, $32 against the underset, and $35 against AK, average it out and you can call a $27 bet when a flush draw completes.

Now, add into that the possibility of stacking the FD when it completes and pairs the board, plus the possibility of picking off a river valuebet by an underset, and the $$ you can call on the end when a FD completes is probably very close to the remaining stack sizes.

Getting read on opponent, putting them on a hand range, estimating pot equity and FE and EV against this range, and adding it all up is the kind of math a pokerplayer needs to do at the table. because of the time involved in doing all this math in your head is the reason why a good feel player can do as well as a good thinking player (ie they have a better idea of villains hand range, but less idea of exact EV, or whatever).

[raistlinx]

Thank you for the time and thought here. This is excellent reading and food for thought. The example is great to run through some hands of your own away from the table.

Any thoughts on a weaker hand like one pair? If you check behind on the turn you save yourself when behind but cost when you are ahead. Does any more than a 1/4 pot call when a flush comes seem worth calling in this case with no read?

[KurtSF]

[ QUOTE ]
Does any more than a 1/4 pot call when a flush comes seem worth calling in this case with no read?

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends.

/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[SwingVelvet]

[ QUOTE ]

1/2 pot (getting 3 to 1) call if you consider your ahead at least 1 time out of 3.

potsize call if your think your ahead 2 times out of three.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong, maybe a typo. To clarify:

1/2 pot (getting 3 to 1)
least 1 time out of 4.

potsize (getting 2 to 1) call if you think you're ahead 1 time out of three.

correct 3 to 1 is one time out ouf four. Sorry i usualy think in percentages.