Suckers play?
 

Limit .50/1
Hero is BB (6c3d)
3 folds, MP2 calls, CO(post BB) checks, 1 fold, SB calls, Hero checks.

FLOP [board cards 8C,JS,6S ]
SB fold, Hero checks, MP2 checks, CO checks.

TURN [board cards 8C,JS,6S,8H ]
Hero checks, MP2 bets, CO folds, Hero calls.

RIVER [board cards 8C,JS,6S,8H,KD ]
Hero checks, MP2 bets, Hero calls.

On the turn, with the board pairing, I thought there was a reasonable chance nobody had an 8, and that therefore I was ahead. I could have lead the turn. I evaluated to more than 50% the chance my opponent was bluffing in this spot, or betting for what he thinks is value. That's why I called down. Any comment?

Re: Suckers play?
 

this could be expertly played (but it wasnt because you have no read)

you should be betting the turn

Re: Suckers play?
 

i would need some good reads to make this play

Re: Suckers play?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I evaluated to more than 50% the chance my opponent was bluffing in this spot, or betting for what he thinks is value. That's why I called down. Any comment?

[/ QUOTE ]

The stuff in bold makes no sense.

Re: Suckers play?
 

What kind of reads do you have to determine the chance he's bluffing. Without any solid read here's the most likely scenarios:

1. You're slightly ahead and hold, and win the pot
2. You're slightly ahead and he draws out, and you pay him off on the river, and lose the pot.
3. You're way behind, and either will draw out or not, and lose or win the pot based on that for an extra two BB (win or lose, and then there's the rake)

Due to the oppressive rake, you gotta fold.

Re: Suckers play?
 

your getting ~1.2BB off him when you snap off the bluff

your losing ~1.8BB when behind....

consider this

and fold

young padawan

Re: Suckers play?
 

With top pair being checked around, and the board pairing, you should probably be betting this turn. Simply toss the hand away to a raise, but more than likely you're ahead here.

Re: Suckers play?
 

Calling down marginal hands in small pots has been rather well established as a leak.

If you think that this is the type of player that even considers the concept of betting for value, then calling down is probably a mistake. Generally, these are tight players, and most tight players won't bet A-high on the turn and river as a bluff.

It all comes down to your reads on the players. I will mention that my notes on you quickly include the fact that you called down bottom pair with no kicker out of position in a tiny pot vs. [insert type] of player heads-up. This type of note is a staple in many of my loose-passive opponents, and typically doesn't show up in my notes for better players.

Showdown
 

Vilain showed Ad5c for a stone cold bluff, and my pair was good. But you guys are probably right, as I should have lead, which is what I usually do.

As for the one who would tag me loose passive here, I am 14.5/7.5(I can't find my agression factor (I am new to PT)) over my first 2500 hands.

Re: Suckers play?
 

I got to thinking last night more about this hand. In fact, I couldn't get to sleep. Here's what I came up with.

Let's assume that you are, in fact 50% to have the best hand on the turn. What are your chances of retaining at least that much equity against his range on the river?

Not so good, as we will see.

Villian could have up to seventeen outs to improve to a better hand on the river! This is when he has a flush draw + overcards. He would have eight flush outs (the 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] gives you a boat), six overcard outs, and three jacks that counterfeit your hand.

If he's only got two overcards, then that's nine outs.
One overcard is still six outs.

So, if he's got a worse hand on the flop then:
FD + OC, 17 outs: 36% chance to improve, 86% chance you are beat on river.
OC, 9 outs: 19.5% chance to improve, 70% chance you are beat on river.
One OC, 6 outs: 13% chance to improve, 63% chance you are beat on river.

Only in the last scenario are you OK putting two bets in on the turn and river to win four, heads-up. You'll see at least two overcards here most of the time.

Now, when you are behind 50% of the time, you usually have only two outs to improve, which improve your chances of having the best hand when you are behind by a measly 4%.

An opponent who will fire the turn and river on a pure bluff or "bad value bet" as you describe it, is not a description of a normal player. When your hand does hold up, you frequently will only win one bet from your opponent, and he'll make you pay two when you are behind much more often. Position, Position, Position.

It's easy to see here that being ahead 50% of the time on the turn doesn't mean you will be ahead 50% of the time on the river.

Naturally, when a jack hits on the river you pretty much have to fold or bluff. When the flush card comes, you have to make another tough read. If he spikes an overcard, you have no information with which to make a decision.

I'm happy to see that he was indeed bluffing, but make sure that you don't reinforce bad habits with good results. Remember that the results don't matter, as long as you are always making the correct decision.

Re: Showdown
 

[ QUOTE ]
As for the one who would tag me loose passive here, I am 14.5/7.5(I can't find my agression factor (I am new to PT)) over my first 2500 hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was me. A tight and aggressive player can have loose and passive tendancies in some spots. Your total aggression is listed under the "more detail" button on the general tab. Make sure you don't include PF aggression.

PT is a great source of study material, both on yourself, and on your opponents. While new to PT, I'd stick to yourself, since that person's game will have the largest impact on your bottom line.

I'm certain that you are playing an overall tight-aggressive style, but it's in the play of marginal hands that separate the people to avoid at the table and those that I don't mind tangling with. If you've got this leak, then you've probably got other leaks as well.

Long story short. If you can learn to play marginal and sub-marginal hands well, then you are well on your way to becoming an expert poker player.

Re: Suckers play?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I evaluated to more than 50% the chance my opponent was bluffing in this spot, or betting for what he thinks is value. That's why I called down. Any comment?

[/ QUOTE ]

The stuff in bold makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. I think he means that the chance of his opponent mistakenly value-betting a hand that he thinks is best, plus the chance that his opponent knows he can only win by his opponent is bluffing is roughly 50%.

Naturally, this type of read denotes that you think that he's a "thinking" player, hence my comment earlier.

I might "value-bet" this on the turn, as villian, having A-high versus two random hands that have shown no interest, but if I'm called, I'm not paying off again. A player who will call on that turn with that pot (a tight player to boot) probably has my A5o beat here in this spot.

I guess that would make the hand more of a bluff, since my main chance of winning this tiny pot is having both my opponents fold on the turn, but with good reads it might be a good play.

Re: Suckers play?
 

[ QUOTE ]
this could be expertly played (but it wasnt because you have no read)

you should be betting the turn

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree here that leading out on the turn is much better than planning to check and call two bets after MP3 bets and CO folds. My only gripe with this that is if we get a caller, then we still don't know where we stand on the river, and checking the river could induce a bluff that we might be getting only a small overlay on, and might fold to.

Naturally, I'd like the pot to be a little bigger.

Without concrete reads, it's hard to make any sort of "expert" plays, since almost all expert plays are based on the tendancies of your opponents.

I prefer check/folding here versus 95% of the people I play against.

Re: Suckers play?
 

I don't think the checkcall, inducing the bluff, is so bad. We know villain doesn't have a Jack, and unless he has TT, 99 or A8 that he was scared to bet on the flop, we have the best hand. Yes, villain has outs, but we have the best hand.

But betting the turn gives a lot of FE, since villain has to consider that we may have an 8, and he may be drawing dead except to a flush draw. Forget the 50% stuff, if villain has 6 outs, then he's got 6 outs and is a real dog and we should bet. I guess you do have to add in the possiblilty of TT, 99, or A8, but it's nowhere near 50%.

If villain calls, it gets tough if a spade or OC falls, but I think a checkcall is worth it. But I doubt hero gets many calls on that turn.

Re: Suckers play?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If villain calls, it gets tough if a spade or OC falls, but I think a checkcall is worth it. But I doubt hero gets many calls on that turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

You'll see a spade or an overcard 72% of the time here. Not counting the eights as overcards since that gives you a hand worth calling down. If you get called the 33% of the time you need to break even on the turn, then that's a fairly good chance that you'll be unsure of where you are at on the river, plus being out of position

Is a 2BB pot really worth it?

Betting is much better than check/calling with the intention of same on the river. No arguments there.

Edit: The player could have a bad Jack that he was afraid to bet. These types of players abound at .5/1

Re: Suckers play?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The player could have a bad Jack that he was afraid to bet. These types of players abound at .5/1

[/ QUOTE ]

So much so that I have a ginourmous sign by my monitor that says don't bet 2nd pair out of position on the turn! I think you could leave this play in your bag and not have it be a leak for a long time.