Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

Villain is bad. Assume he is a standard fish, bit of a calling station, can't handread for [censored]. Will never fold a draw for even pot sized bets - all that good stuff.

Whats the best turn/river combination?

6max. 5/10.
Hero is dealt A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] on the button.

Folds to hero who makes it 35. Fish calls in the BB with ??

Flop comes Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (Pot is 80)
Fish checks, Hero bets 65. Fish calls.

Turn is the J [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (Pot is 210)
Fish checks, Hero ???

My question is the following: Which turn/river combo is better AND WHY.

A) Check turn, call a bet on a blank river.
2) Bet turn, check behind on any river.
iii) Something else??

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

2 is obviously better

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

lol love the A/2/iii format

anyway I think it is very close between A and 2

A is good for pot control, and he will bluff missed clubs occasionally so there is a decent chance of getting value there

2 protects your hand, and gets value from draws and other random thing he calls with cuz hes a fish

I really dont think either option is bad but I would go w/ 2

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

2 is definitely better unless he bluffs with a very big frequency in 1.

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

[ QUOTE ]

2) Bet turn, check behind on most rivers.


[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

Seriously? My standard is A. (We bet when checked to on the river obviously).

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2) Bet turn, check behind on most rivers.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

King of the Nits

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

he is never folding a club draw on the turn, maybe never even folding a 7 or any pocket pair. and fish typically call too much and dont bluff that much. so not betting this turn sucks.

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously? My standard is A. (We bet when checked to on the river obviously).

[/ QUOTE ]

but WHY do you take this line?!?!

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

Yeah I'm not so concerned about inducing bluffs as I am maxing from worse pairs, which I think call way more often on the river. Even against guys so-described I'll often fire with A hi here since you get so many folds.

Mmm I guess that counts as charging a flush draw though.

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

this is kind of a funny example because your garden variety fish can't be counted on to call a psb with a draw, especially a weakish one like a 5c4c in this hand. given your description, i would bet the turn and then consider betting the river.

if villain is going to call a small river bet with a 7, a Q, and some other misc. pp's and stupid hands, i think we give up value by auto-checking.

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

Villain can't hand-read at all, hardly ever folds a draw, and probably doesn't bluff a missed draw. I'd bet around 150-170 here and check on a lot of rivers, but probably bet on a low card blank and expect a call from like A7 or something around that hand-strength.

I don't really like checking turn because of your description that he calls too much and can't read hands. He's probably not calling the river with A4c but he'll definitely call a big turn bet.

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

Def A: his Q combos are more frequent then his flush draw combos unless he is calling turn bets rediculously light like 99-88 type hands

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

Also for anyone saying bet turn and river... wow

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also for anyone saying bet turn and river... wow

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize that villain isn't solid AT ALL right?

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also for anyone saying bet turn and river... wow

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize that villain isn't solid AT ALL right?

[/ QUOTE ]
Ya I read OP.. but no fish is that bad. Just because you beat a few of his bottom tier hands in his turn/river calling range doesn't mean value betting both streets is the best play. His went to showdown would have to be like 50% or something crazy.

There is such a misunderstanding of value betting being shown in this thread

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

vs a station bet 140-150. why try to induce a bluff from someone who doesn't have a tendency to bluff?

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2) Bet turn, check behind on most rivers.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

He probably doesn't bluff that often, so he is going to check the river with some random draw and it's an easy check for us depending on the river card. We are betting turn for value as well.

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

2) Bet turn, check behind on most rivers.


[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

wow the term "pot control" has gotten way out of hand aroudn here .....bet the turn 100%

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

i like 2 provided we dont improve on river

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

Lol you guys realize that when value betting the number of hands in his calling range that you're beating has to be greater than the number of hands that he's beating you with right???
If KQ, QJ, QT, Q9 and maybe AQ are in his check/call flop check turn range, how many flush draw combos are you giving him? Everybody think he's calling the turn w/ TT, 99, 88? I really doubt that. I guess betting the turn could be right but it's definitely not obviously right.

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

i've only read a few responses, please god just lock this thread now, i'd really rather not talk about stuff that has to do with this situation and board texture, and anyone out there who is good shouldn't want to either.

these are the kind of boards that bad players play bad, but don't realize they're bad players.

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

[ QUOTE ]

If KQ, QJ, QT, Q9 and maybe AQ are in his check/call flop check turn range, how many flush draw combos are you giving him?

[/ QUOTE ]

In addition to the flush draws a fish is bound to call with hands that were middle,bottom or second pair on the flop.

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

[ QUOTE ]
i've only read a few responses, please god just lock this thread now, i'd really rather not talk about stuff that has to do with this situation and board texture, and anyone out there who is good shouldn't want to either.

these are the kind of boards that bad players play bad, but don't realize they're bad players.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] i know, i thought about that.

FWIW, i made this as more of an exercise than as a question. I mean, i know MY play.

GOTTA GIVE BACK TO THE COMMUNITY SOMETIMES.

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If KQ, QJ, QT, Q9 and maybe AQ are in his check/call flop check turn range, how many flush draw combos are you giving him?

[/ QUOTE ]

In addition to the flush draws a fish is bound to call with hands that were middle,bottom or second pair on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]
You need to reread my post.. just because you are beating his range on the turn doesnt mean you should be value betting. Ok so he has those hands but doesnt call a turn bet with them. So they're insignificant when deciding to value bet.

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Lol you guys realize that when value betting the number of hands in his calling range that you're beating has to be greater than the number of hands that he's beating you with right???
If KQ, QJ, QT, Q9 and maybe AQ are in his check/call flop check turn range, how many flush draw combos are you giving him? Everybody think he's calling the turn w/ TT, 99, 88? I really doubt that. I guess betting the turn could be right but it's definitely not obviously right.

[/ QUOTE ]

i agree with this to an extent. OP only says player is a "bit of a calling station", and somehow people are turning that into "calls with any pair or piece of the board". players who fit the description are generally folding TT-88 here. i really don't think it's as cut and dried as people are acting, as i don't think he calls with too many worse hands except draws. convince me more

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

[ QUOTE ]
i've only read a few responses, please god just lock this thread now, i'd really rather not talk about stuff that has to do with this situation and board texture, and anyone out there who is good shouldn't want to either.

these are the kind of boards that bad players play bad, but don't realize they're bad players.

[/ QUOTE ]

if you don't want to shower us with your bountiful wisdom then stfu. nobody asked your permission to do this thread.

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i've only read a few responses, please god just lock this thread now, i'd really rather not talk about stuff that has to do with this situation and board texture, and anyone out there who is good shouldn't want to either.

these are the kind of boards that bad players play bad, but don't realize they're bad players.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] i know, i thought about that.

FWIW, i made this as more of an exercise than as a question. I mean, i know MY play.

GOTTA GIVE BACK TO THE COMMUNITY SOMETIMES.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you serious?

because I mean like my post was a complete joke, I'm testing msnl ldo, sometimes I think I should charge people an annual fee for reading my posts. you know, like, I know what MY play would be in that situation, just don't want to alert the bad players to what the correct play is by making this post, know what I mean?

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i've only read a few responses, please god just lock this thread now, i'd really rather not talk about stuff that has to do with this situation and board texture, and anyone out there who is good shouldn't want to either.

these are the kind of boards that bad players play bad, but don't realize they're bad players.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] i know, i thought about that.

FWIW, i made this as more of an exercise than as a question. I mean, i know MY play.

GOTTA GIVE BACK TO THE COMMUNITY SOMETIMES.

[/ QUOTE ]

are you serious?

because I mean like my post was a complete joke, I'm testing msnl ldo, sometimes I think I should charge people an annual fee for reading my posts. you know, like, I know what MY play would be in that situation, just don't want to alert the bad players to what the correct play is by making this post, know what I mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

i dont know if you're being serious and there are too many words in that last sentence for it to warrant being reread bc im lazy.

holla.

also, i think my answer to you is yes.

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

paster,

"standard fish" is very vague. vs many tags id check behind and call a bet on a blank river because i think pot control > charging draws. however, vs a fish who likely wont bluff it becomes best to just bet the turn. i think its worth noting that there are way more tag"fish" than regular fish that make checking for pot control better in general.

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

I'm betting turn every time vs described player. I agree with Jfish though that against a bad TAG I'm checking the turn a lot unless I have a really bluffy image.

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

[ QUOTE ]
paster,

"standard fish" is very vague. vs many tags id check behind and call a bet on a blank river because i think pot control > charging draws. however, vs a fish who likely wont bluff it becomes best to just bet the turn. i think its worth noting that there are way more tag"fish" than regular fish that make checking for pot control better in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, i assume most "tagfish" will be c/r the flop with a FD, bc they c/r all their draws bc thats the cool thing to do obv.

If we can greatly reduce the number of FDs in his range, then i agree that the check behind is obv better.

I guess "standard fish" was a bad term to use, but in my mind, this person would never c/r the turn on a semibluff or bluff of any kind, so our bet is obv for value/protection.

If we're raised its an easy muck, and when we're called, we still win the pot pretty often.

The reason i made this post is bc i think most people just check behind the turn in this situation with no real thought process besides "omg 2nd pair = pot control" which i think is wrong...a bunch.

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

[ QUOTE ]
"standard fish" is very vague. vs many tags id check behind and call a bet on a blank river because i think pot control > charging draws. however, vs a fish who likely wont bluff it becomes best to just bet the turn. i think its worth noting that there are way more tag"fish" than regular fish that make checking for pot control better in general.

[/ QUOTE ]

jfish - The use of the term pot control here seems to be pretty wishy washy imo. How does checking behind on the turn control the pot more? Do you think it is likely he is going to lead the river after the turn goes check-bet-call? I don't. Do you think he is going to check-raise a worse hand on the turn? I don't given player description, and its not like we have decent equity if behind to make checking the turn any better either. Obviously you have reasons why you think 'pot control' by checking the turn is good, could you explain them please?

To me the vast majority of this decision seems to be not 'pot control' but maximising value against draws vs. maximising value vs bluffs/possibly getting an underpair to call more often on the river.

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

[ QUOTE ]
i think most people just check behind the turn in this situation with no real thought process besides "omg 2nd pair = pot control" which i think is wrong...a bunch.

[/ QUOTE ]

you think charigng draws on the turn is superior? bc this is EXACTLY what i think vs most opponents. id say i bet this turn vs like 10% of people.

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

i use pot control because i think his range is {Qx, worse pairs, draws}. i figure he folds worse pairs (especially on a J turn) and calls with Qx and draws. i think the bet is, in itself, unprofitable because his calling range is so "strong" - and when you bet, you are mostly donating money to Qx.

is this poor thinking?

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

this assumes he is also folding lots of draws on the turn.

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

[ QUOTE ]
i use pot control because i think his range is {Qx, worse pairs, draws}. i figure he folds worse pairs (especially on a J turn) and calls with Qx and draws. i think the bet is, in itself, unprofitable because his calling range is so "strong" - and when you bet, you are mostly donating money to Qx.

is this poor thinking?

[/ QUOTE ]
No read my post from earlier. This was my point. Also, there is no such thing as "pot control." You are checking behind w/ AJ because it has showdown value and there is no value in betting.

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

basically the way i see it is that you really cannot play a medium-big pot here without putting in money against a range you are dominated against. if you check behind and he leads blank rivers, i sometimes still fold.

Re: Standard Hypothetical Situation.
 

[ QUOTE ]
this assumes he is also folding lots of draws on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]
Even if he calls all flush draws, I still believe checking is better..