[Adam Stewart]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The guy is a LAG.

Bet the turn, but fold to a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this strike you as odd at all?

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]


I know what you mean, and I thought about that when writng the post.

I thought about this some more and think the following line is better:

Bet the turn, if raised, call the turn raise. Then check the river. If he bets the river, fold.


What do you think?


Adam

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't like it, I think against a true LAG you will get raised a very high percentage of the time on the turn. That's what LAGs do. Why put in two bets and not get to showdown when you can put in the same amount and see one? Checking has a good chance to induce a bluff from a LAG as well. I really think that c/c is the optimal line here.
I will say that against some passive opponents, bet/fold is probably more correct.

[/ QUOTE ]


The point is we *are* only still putting in 2 bets to see a showdown.

If he's bluffing, and raises my turn bet - GREAT. After I call his turn raise, he'll rarely have the balls to pull the trigger again on the river with a total bluff.

In other words, if he bets the river after raising the turn, he most likely has us beat. For those times that he's raising the turn for a free showdown, our line still works, and still only costs us two bets.

Now, if we just let the guy bluff, and we plan to check/call the turn and river ... there's no guarantee he'll bet the river. Therefore, villain is allowed to play more perfectly, so to speak. He's just got out of having to pay two bets for a showdown with an inferior hand.


Adam