NL50 - Flush on paired board

[dirtylobster]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with JadeRedstone about betting this turn. You are not representing the flush, so I think you're missing value on the turn here. As played the potbet of Villain shows he probably has the ace (did he?). I think a raise in this spot is appropriate, since you're not representing a flush or anything. (When villains is some donk you might even push it allin, he might call with ace-rag)

I wouldn't be scared for a higher flush in this spot, especially 3-handed. Also, if he has a higher flush, would he check 2 streets with the (second) nut flush draw and with the made flush? I dont think so ..
does anyone agree with this?

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it amusing that you keep arguing about something I agree 100% on. As stated earlier, I bet this turn 90% of the time, for those exact reasons you've all been repeating. In this case though, I choose to NOT do it. I was just uncertain about raising the river in this particular situation.

Mixing it up is a healthy practice. It wasn't just about the unknown villain, there were also the other players around the table watching the hand go down and if they're even slightly paying attention they noticed my check when I hit the flush which will therefore confuse them next time, as I bet my made flush on the turn 90% of the time.

I refuse to play a certain way 100% of the time. It would make my play predictable and also poker would be very boring to me.

The question was not whether to bet the turn or not. It was about raising the river. Do we agree? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[dirtylobster]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not betting turn with the non nut flush is really bad.
Now you HAVE to raise turn as you have underrep'd your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Arrr, I mean you have to raise river of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ty, that was the answer I was looking for. I realized it myself the moment I previewed my post for the first time. It was because I got scared and carried away by the situation that I just called and decided to post the hand here. And I only did it because of the fact that I often don't post hands here because I usually realize what's wrong the moment I look at the preview. Now I was just wondering if anyone had any similar experiences.

[21SuicideKing21]

He would have reraised you on flop if he had two pair so I really don't see him having a full house here, but his line does indicate that he probably has an ace, so I'd might reraise him here because he called your CB flop, you slowed down on turn, and the river pairs board, so he could have a weakish ace.

[.KeviN.]

Honestly the way this was played I'm not gonna be too comfortable with any play I make on the river. I agree that a raise would probably be the best play, but what do we do now if he 3 bets us AI? I guess it's a fold, but what strong hands could he possibly be putting us on after we checked the turn?

[Ace0fSpades]

[ QUOTE ]
I would raise turn.

As played, just call.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Atlanta Andrew]

[ QUOTE ]
Mixing it up is a healthy practice. It wasn't just about the unknown villain, there were also the other players around the table watching the hand go down and if they're even slightly paying attention they noticed my check when I hit the flush which will therefore confuse them next time, as I bet my made flush on the turn 90% of the time.

I refuse to play a certain way 100% of the time. It would make my play predictable and also poker would be very boring to me.


[/ QUOTE ]

OP, I'm not going to flat out disagree with you on this concept (except the boredom part, lol), but you might have some leaks in your game if you are consistently using uNL meta-game deception to justify plays that lose a LOT of immediate value.

Like checking this turn for example...in a bubble, it's a big losing play for reasons you appear to understand. Making up that value in pure meta-game deception is more difficult than you realize.

I would bet this turn 100% of the time and save my meta-game trickery for super-rare occasions against regulars who have lots of history with me.

-Andrew

[VPIP100]

[ QUOTE ]
I bet the turn 90% of the time here but my plan was specifically to let him think his ace/whatever is good and induce a bet on the river. I'm still confident that I would play the turn the same way in that exact situation again , against an unknown.

For the record, I just called the river and he mucked A5o.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is it?

Anyway, raising the river is pointless unless you think he will pay you off when you raise. I dont see any worse hands calling and you just re-open the betting if he has you beat, thus making this a call.

[FloppyJ]

[ QUOTE ]

Who else does this? Converts hands, looks them through and never posts them because you find the answer to your question yourself?

[/ QUOTE ]

Always. I should probably stop doing that and post anyway.

As played, I call that river, almost never raising. I would have bet turn.

[dirtylobster]

[ QUOTE ]
What is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

The particular mood I was in when the situation arose.

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, raising the river is pointless unless you think he will pay you off when you raise. I dont see any worse hands calling and you just re-open the betting if he has you beat, thus making this a call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those were my thoughts as I made the call. Afterwards I think I maybe should have raised. I realize the whole problem came from checking the turn but I still want to view the hand from the point of checking it. So... I now think I could have raised the river and got paid.

[dirtylobster]

[ QUOTE ]
I would bet this turn 100% of the time and save my meta-game trickery for super-rare occasions against regulars who have lots of history with me.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have a valid point there.