Newb@50NL with overpair

[SlyGuy]

CC'r was pretty tight. I probably looked like a LAG i was 30/30 running hot. Tell me the optimal way to play the entire hand. I am a long time limit player floundering at NL /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Was the turn check bad?

Full Tilt Poker
No Limit Holdem Ring game
Blinds: $0.25/$0.50
6 players
Converter (http://www.neildewhurst.com/hand-converter)

Stack sizes:
UTG: $50
UTG+1: $83.10
Hero: $63.45
Button: $39.75
SB: $91.80
BB: $65.75

Pre-flop: (6 players) Hero is CO with J/images/graemlins/spade.gif J/images/graemlins/club.gif
<font color="#cc0000">UTG raises to $1.75</font>, UTG+1 folds, <font color="#cc0000">Hero raises to $6</font>, Button folds, SB calls, 2 folds.

Flop: 6/images/graemlins/heart.gif 4/images/graemlins/spade.gif 2/images/graemlins/heart.gif ($14.25, 2 players)
SB checks, <font color="#cc0000">Hero bets $10</font>, SB calls.

Turn: 8/images/graemlins/spade.gif ($34.25, 2 players)
SB checks, Hero checks.

River: 7/images/graemlins/heart.gif ($34.25, 2 players)
<font color="#cc0000">SB is all-in $75.8</font>, Hero folds.
Uncalled bets: $75.8 returned to SB.

Results:
Final pot: $34.25

[freedom18]

what do u think /images/graemlins/smile.gif how do u feel when he put u to that decision? wouldnt u have felt better if u put 20 in the turn and he folded or called. u check behind the river or fold to any action /images/graemlins/blush.gif

[SlyGuy]

english?

[Vang]

Why not bet the turn here? I really don't think he has an overpair to the board. Given that he called a raise to 12BB, I doubt he has 75, so he probably hasn't made a straight on the turn. The way he played it, it looks like he had two heart overcards.

I bet enough here on the turn that he's making a mistake by calling with 13 outs (3 of each of his overcards, the 9 hearts).

[dirtysanchez]

[ QUOTE ]
Why not bet the turn here? I really don't think he has an overpair to the board. Given that he called a raise to 12BB, I doubt he has 75, so he probably hasn't made a straight on the turn. The way he played it, it looks like he had two heart overcards.

I bet enough here on the turn that he's making a mistake by calling with 13 outs (3 of each of his overcards, the 9 hearts).

[/ QUOTE ]

why cant he have an overpair? betting this turn is bad unless you are convinced you want to felt this hand for 100BBs.folding this river is standard.

edit: when a tight player coldcalls a 3-bet like this OOP, be worried

[Vang]

Why does he check the turn with an overpair?

[dirtysanchez]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does he check the turn with an overpair?

[/ QUOTE ]

to CRAI? because he slowplays AA/KK like he saw on TV? you cant expect him to take a standard 2p2 line w/ whatever he cold-called with. FWIW this is like JJ+ that doesnt want to scare everyone out most of the time, AK that is confused some of the time, and stupid small-medium pairs (most of which beat you now) a little of the time. I think pot control on the turn is a better option than worrying about a FD in a RR pot

[KurtSF]

I'd probably bet 12 on the flop. Nice hand.

[SlyGuy]

so my thinking of keeping the pot small and value betting a safe river isn't badly flawed?

[KurtSF]

Not many safe rivers, unfortunately. Pretty much every card in the deck hits some hand, either filling a flush, filling a straight, or spiking an overcard. What would you consider a safe river?

I'd be of the mind of value-calling the river myself. Especially if you look like a LAG and he might CRAI any bet you make on the end because he thinks its a bluff.

I could be wrong.

[orange]

played fine.

[br.bm]

I'd bet the turn (between 15 and 20)
this makes him pay to draw to a str8 or flush

not betting the turn leaves you open for a river bluff.

In this hand I'd bet turn, check behind on any river and fold to any resitance

[KurtSF]

What are the effective differences between my line (check behind on turn, call small river bet (fold to shove obv)) and yours (bet turn, check behind river, fold to any bet)? Is there a significant difference?

[freedom18]

[ QUOTE ]
english?

[/ QUOTE ]
hahaha what i meant to say was bet the turn, if he gives anny aggression after that u are bound to be beat especially with such an ugly river. Try to get to showdown as cheaply as possible after such a river T_T

[Genz]

[ QUOTE ]
so my thinking of keeping the pot small and value betting a safe river isn't badly flawed?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I like it.

Villain could check that turn with a bigger pair to a) check/raise or b) let you bet his hand for him. He cold called a BIG reraise preflop from OOP and then he called the continuation bet on a pretty low board. I think he is quite strong here and he is only 18% to make his flush on the river if he is drawing. Looking at the action like that, I don't want to play for stacks with a single pair.

[T-Bone98]

I would bet mor on the flop. It's a draw heavy board and u wanna make him pay for drawing. I'd bet 12bb.

btw: What does FWIW mean???

[KurtSF]

For what its worth...

[rakes.a.beach]

I like your line here. If he checks again on the river, you can bet at him again. Sometimes it looks like you have AQ/AK and a pair of 5's will call you. You really don't wanna felt it with JJ here. As played, I'd fold river. Your line is fine.

[Unknown Soldier]

[ QUOTE ]
when a tight player coldcalls a 3-bet like this OOP, be worried

[/ QUOTE ]

well played op

[jimpo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so my thinking of keeping the pot small and value betting a safe river isn't badly flawed?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I like it.

Villain could check that turn with a bigger pair to a) check/raise or b) let you bet his hand for him. He cold called a BIG reraise preflop from OOP and then he called the continuation bet on a pretty low board. I think he is quite strong here and he is only 18% to make his flush on the river if he is drawing. Looking at the action like that, I don't want to play for stacks with a single pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the point of worrying about the situation when he has an overpair to us? We will lose the hand anyways, what do we gain by checking the turn? We are very very rarely going to catch a set on the river. Are you still calling a bet on the river? If so, then how is betting-folding to a raise on turn any worse than checking turn and calling river?

[ama0330]

OP has played this hand very well.

[dirtysanchez]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so my thinking of keeping the pot small and value betting a safe river isn't badly flawed?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I like it.

Villain could check that turn with a bigger pair to a) check/raise or b) let you bet his hand for him. He cold called a BIG reraise preflop from OOP and then he called the continuation bet on a pretty low board. I think he is quite strong here and he is only 18% to make his flush on the river if he is drawing. Looking at the action like that, I don't want to play for stacks with a single pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the point of worrying about the situation when he has an overpair to us? We will lose the hand anyways, what do we gain by checking the turn? We are very very rarely going to catch a set on the river. Are you still calling a bet on the river? If so, then how is betting-folding to a raise on turn any worse than checking turn and calling river?

[/ QUOTE ]

pot control. we can control the how much we are willing to call on a blank river. also we will sometimes fold the best hand by betfolding turn if he shoves a draw over the top.

[Tiki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so my thinking of keeping the pot small and value betting a safe river isn't badly flawed?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I like it.

Villain could check that turn with a bigger pair to a) check/raise or b) let you bet his hand for him. He cold called a BIG reraise preflop from OOP and then he called the continuation bet on a pretty low board. I think he is quite strong here and he is only 18% to make his flush on the river if he is drawing. Looking at the action like that, I don't want to play for stacks with a single pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the point of worrying about the situation when he has an overpair to us? We will lose the hand anyways, what do we gain by checking the turn? We are very very rarely going to catch a set on the river. Are you still calling a bet on the river? If so, then how is betting-folding to a raise on turn any worse than checking turn and calling river?

[/ QUOTE ]

pot control. we can control the how much we are willing to call on a blank river. also we will sometimes fold the best hand by betfolding turn if he shoves a draw over the top.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although I'm not suggesting it here, some villain's persistently make river over-bets in situations like this after the "weak" check-behind on the turn. Yet another reason for sometimes checking marginal hands on the turn. To me, poker is all about getting value for your marginal/trash hands and that little bit extra on the river sometimes.

Without reads, well-played by OP.

[corsakh]

Nice hand. I dont see any problem here.

[jimpo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so my thinking of keeping the pot small and value betting a safe river isn't badly flawed?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I like it.

Villain could check that turn with a bigger pair to a) check/raise or b) let you bet his hand for him. He cold called a BIG reraise preflop from OOP and then he called the continuation bet on a pretty low board. I think he is quite strong here and he is only 18% to make his flush on the river if he is drawing. Looking at the action like that, I don't want to play for stacks with a single pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the point of worrying about the situation when he has an overpair to us? We will lose the hand anyways, what do we gain by checking the turn? We are very very rarely going to catch a set on the river. Are you still calling a bet on the river? If so, then how is betting-folding to a raise on turn any worse than checking turn and calling river?

[/ QUOTE ]

pot control. we can control the how much we are willing to call on a blank river. also we will sometimes fold the best hand by betfolding turn if he shoves a draw over the top.

[/ QUOTE ]

We can control the pot size only if we bet the turn. If we check turn he decides the price for showdown, not us. I cant help thinking that either way we pay 1 bet to see showdown and by betting turn we get to decide the size.

And if we check the turn we can just as well fold the best hand to a bluff on river, so there's no difference in that aspect.

I may sound a bit thick but I would like to understand the concepts with some clarity. Now I realize there are pros and cons for both betting and checking the turn, but no real way of knowing which factors are more important than others.

This is a pretty basic concept, maybe there are some articles out there? I need to look at NLTP when I get home...

As I see it,
Betting turn:
+ you do not give a free card to draws (yes it IS possible he is drawing - and letting him get there for free is a BIG mistake)
- you may fold to a raise by a draw
+ you may fold out a better hand (longshot)
Checking turn:
- give a free card to draws
+ you may induce a bluff that you call from a worse hand
- you may fold to a bluff from a worse hand

What else is there? And how can we prioritize these?

Also, how does the type of opponent affect this?

In a nutshell, I am eager for answers to the question KurtSF asked

[ QUOTE ]

What are the effective differences between my line (check behind on turn, call small river bet (fold to shove obv)) and yours (bet turn, check behind river, fold to any bet)? Is there a significant difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

[Genz]

This is so opponent dependant.
If villain is mostly passive, betting the turn for the price you decide can get you to a cheap sd, because villain will check the river and you can check behind, whereas he would have bet the river himself if you had checked the turn. At the same time, you can fold to a raise on the turn with a lot of confidence.

Against an aggressive and/or tricky player, you can get into nasty spots easily: you can be c/r'ed on the turn and have no idea if you are up against a better hand, a semi-bluff or a pure bluff. He can flat call the turn and suddenly lead into you on the river just as if he had you do the betting for him. And then your way to a cheap sd is blocked and you still don't know where you are. This problem is most virulent when a scare card comes on the river like an A or a K or a third to the flush.

In this hand, the description of villain was, that he was tight and probably quite decent. At the same time, we have a laggy image. Villain seems to be determined to call very big bets as he did preflop and on the flop. So he probably has a very good hand and if he is a decent player, he won't just overbet the river because we showed weakness on the turn. It's more likely that he'll call the turn bet and we will have a nasty river decision here, since there are so many cards we don't want to see here.

[jimpo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why does he check the turn with an overpair?

[/ QUOTE ]

to CRAI? because he slowplays AA/KK like he saw on TV? you cant expect him to take a standard 2p2 line w/ whatever he cold-called with. FWIW this is like JJ+ that doesnt want to scare everyone out most of the time, AK that is confused some of the time, and stupid small-medium pairs (most of which beat you now) a little of the time. I think pot control on the turn is a better option than worrying about a FD in a RR pot

[/ QUOTE ]

If you put him on either

1) AA/KK or a set or
2) AKs / AQs drawing to overcards and flush

why would you check the turn? Against 1) you are going to lose the hand anyway. Against 2) you are giving a free card. It's a lose-lose situation. Why is pot control important here? You have only one route to winning the hand, that is against option 2), and in that case you have to bet.

(?)

[jimpo]

[ QUOTE ]
This is so opponent dependant.
If villain is mostly passive, betting the turn for the price you decide can get you to a cheap sd, because villain will check the river and you can check behind, whereas he would have bet the river himself if you had checked the turn. At the same time, you can fold to a raise on the turn with a lot of confidence.

Against an aggressive and/or tricky player, you can get into nasty spots easily: you can be c/r'ed on the turn and have no idea if you are up against a better hand, a semi-bluff or a pure bluff. He can flat call the turn and suddenly lead into you on the river just as if he had you do the betting for him. And then your way to a cheap sd is blocked and you still don't know where you are. This problem is most virulent when a scare card comes on the river like an A or a K or a third to the flush.

In this hand, the description of villain was, that he was tight and probably quite decent. At the same time, we have a laggy image. Villain seems to be determined to call very big bets as he did preflop and on the flop. So he probably has a very good hand and if he is a decent player, he won't just overbet the river because we showed weakness on the turn. It's more likely that he'll call the turn bet and we will have a nasty river decision here, since there are so many cards we don't want to see here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Very nice explanation! Makes sense.

[dirtysanchez]

Jimpo, what size turn bet are you advocating that will not commit us to calling a river push? or a turn push for that matter? if we bet small enough to allow ourselves to fold, its going to look v weak and often get pushed over by worse hands.

[Jouster777]

This is a big difference:[ QUOTE ]
this makes him pay to draw to a str8 or flush

not betting the turn leaves you open for a river bluff.


[/ QUOTE ]

[dirtysanchez]

also Jimpo, FWIW i would completely agree w/ you if we were deeper here

[jimpo]

[ QUOTE ]
Jimpo, what size turn bet are you advocating that will not commit us to calling a river push? or a turn push for that matter? if we bet small enough to allow ourselves to fold, its going to look v weak and often get pushed over by worse hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to say 1/2 pot but noticed that it is not enough to make calling a mistake if he has overs + flush draw. 2/3 pot = $23 makes it a (small) mistake for him to call. That leaves hero about 24 and pot is going to be 80 -&gt; 104 if SB bets. I guess most will say we are pot committed then, but I personally have a hard time understanding why we should be pot committed so easily. So what if 75% of our stack is in the pot, money in the pot is dead money and does not belong to us anymore. I can easily find a fold getting 1:4 if river is a heart but I guess that might be because I am more used to limit and considering whether to fold getting 1:10 - 1:20 odds on the river. Also, when it looks to him like we are pot committed, he will not bluff as often.

Agreed, betting the turn is a bit awkward. But I think I still like it at least against passive opponent as Genz described.

[SlyGuy]

In all honestly it was close between betting and checking here for me. These are situations where I am still swimming, having only played about 2k hands of NL. I couldn't think of many hands that would call 12xBB OOP and also call the flop that I was ahead of.

[CrazyEyez]

[ QUOTE ]
If you put him on either

1) AA/KK or a set or
2) AKs / AQs drawing to overcards and flush

why would you check the turn? Against 1) you are going to lose the hand anyway. Against 2) you are giving a free card. It's a lose-lose situation. Why is pot control important here? You have only one route to winning the hand, that is against option 2), and in that case you have to bet.


[/ QUOTE ]

Agree.
We should also be factoring 99 and TT in here, no?

[ QUOTE ]
I was going to say 1/2 pot but noticed that it is not enough to make calling a mistake if he has overs + flush draw. 2/3 pot = $23 makes it a (small) mistake for him to call. That leaves hero about 24 and pot is going to be 80 -&gt; 104 if SB bets. I guess most will say we are pot committed then, but I personally have a hard time understanding why we should be pot committed so easily. So what if 75% of our stack is in the pot, money in the pot is dead money and does not belong to us anymore. I can easily find a fold getting 1:4 if river is a heart but I guess that might be because I am more used to limit and considering whether to fold getting 1:10 - 1:20 odds on the river. Also, when it looks to him like we are pot committed, he will not bluff as often.


[/ QUOTE ]

Agree with this as well.

[KurtSF]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a big difference:[ QUOTE ]
this makes him pay to draw to a str8 or flush

not betting the turn leaves you open for a river bluff.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

River bluff is a bad thing?

1. Induce bluff
2. ???
3. Profit

The over-bet shove is obviously something completely different.

And what if he's ahead? Then we're betting for him, not "charging his draw".

[ QUOTE ]
We can control the pot size only if we bet the turn. If we check turn he decides the price for showdown, not us.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the exact opposite to my thinking.

If you check, he has only one opportunity to bet. Once he makes his action, you can decided to showdown for that price or not. You determine showdown pot size.

If you bet, he can call or raise, then either check to you or lead into you on the river. He has so much more opportunity and flexibility in driving the potsize to wherever he wants it.

You control the bet size when you bet the turn, but you control the pot size when you check it, IMHO.

Also of consideration to me here is that your hand does have some showdown value and there is NO safe river (the best thing to see would be the board pairing, really) and there is no way for you to get a better idea of where you are. In this situation I want to showdown cheap.



Very nice thread!