Your action?
 

Opponent is a Standardish TAG, 29/22/2.3ish.

$5/$10 Limit Hold'em - 6 players
Hand Converter Tool from DeucesCracked.com

Preflop: Hero is CO with 9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
UTG folds, MP folds, <font color="#FF0000">Hero raises</font>, Button folds, SB folds, BB calls.

Flop: (4.60 SB) 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
BB checks, <font color="#FF0000">Hero bets</font>, BB calls.

Turn: (3.30 BB) 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
BB checks, Hero...........


What's your action and why?

Re: Your action?
 

bet. you likely have the best hand still and want to make him pay. you can safely call down if raised. youll lose most of the time you dont improve but the call is the least worst play if raised. checking the turn is too passive and bad form.

Re: Your action?
 

i think its an easy bet/call. He should have all sorts of hands with a heart that he didn't feel like getting aggro with on the flop (especially if he's been caught bluffing recently or you've been showing down light).

If he raises, calling the river UI is not good against vast majority of 5/10 tags. they will usually realize that any A-hi hand has a str8 draw and won't fold so they don't bother semibluffing without a gigantic draw.

Plz keep posting in this forum, we could use your experience down here.

Post deleted by Ryan Beal
 

Re: Your action?
 

I would bet. We could have as many as 17 outs (if I added correctly) if behind. Also there is a chance we are ahead if villain holds a lower FD.

His flop c/c on this board looks a bit odd to me. I wonder what the standard interpretation of it is. A low pair, trying to get to show-down unless board turns bad?

What I mean is that if he's on a draw the board is pretty scary and he should make a move to win UI. But maybe he i thinking that it will be hard to win UI because the board is so scary. That is: Mr Tall will call down light unless a heart falls.

Now I've talked to myself enough.

Anyway bet!

Re: Your action?
 

Not sure why would not bet you have 18 outs and you could still have the best hand as well....

I would imagine that this is a trick question though...since it seems so obvious to bet. The only reason that I could think of for checking, is then most Tag's would not think you had a heart or an ace and basically bet the river no matter what comes. If your one of your cards comes, you can raise the river and if it does not come...you can fold....and get out cheaply. Still like betting better.

Re: Your action?
 

Checking has some merit against a loose flop peeler that will bluff river quite a lot since there will be so many hands in his range you dont mind giving out a free card to and which might fold.

Against a tighter player that wont bluff that much I would just bet.

So againt this player I bet. Against a moron 40/10 guy I check.

Re: Your action?
 

I don´t like a turn value check that much against a 40/10.
Since he many times would call both turn and river with an inferior hand.
And it is by no means a disaster to get checkraised because:

A)We have many outs
B)He quite often does it with a worse hand.
C)He probably is stupid enough to bet/call river if a heart falls.

I´m not that sure i`m right though because I have a hard time doing the math.

Re: Your action?
 

Apanage.

I agree. If you think you can valuebet both streets you shouldnt value check. But I wouldnt do that

Re: Your action?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Apanage.

I agree. If you think you can valuebet both streets you shouldnt value check. But I wouldnt do that

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he has some kind of a heart draw 3/4th of the time.So approximately 15% of the times you can value bet both turn and river.And that makes me lean to bet turn.

Re: Your action?
 

Opponent has KsQh and is hoping his heart-draw has a chance. I can read into his soul!!

I'm liking betting now while thinking our hand is best and also having a zillion outs if somehow it isn't.
Enough lesser-heart hands he's going to continue to peel with but if he misses we can't guarantee he's going to bluff the river.

Re: Your action?
 

I agree with betting here like everyone else. If opponent had a pair he would have likely check raised the flop imo. Additionally, I'm not sure a decent tag will be bluffing the river often enough to pass up value on a turn bet, because your line would look like a value check. I'm torn between calling down a turn check raise tho. If he can hand read, he should see that he won't be able to push you off Ace hi on the turn, so he's committed to firing the river also, so not the ideal spot for him to bluff.

Re: Your action?
 

Another reason to bet: if he has the king or queen of hearts (possibly any heart), he will usually bet/call a heart river whether he has initiative of not, so your implied odds on hitting your flush are the same either way.

Re: Your action?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Opponent has KsQh and is hoping his heart-draw has a chance. I can read into his soul!!

[/ QUOTE ]

I´m little bit puzzled of what you´re trying to say..So to be perfectly clear.
I think that our 40/10 villain 75% of the time has a heart in his hand in which case he calls or checkraises turn.If another heart falls on river he will call/bet river too.
This fact plus the fact that we have lots of outs if behind makes this a clear value bet instead of a turn value check even against a 40/10 player IMO.

Re: Your action?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Apanage.

I agree. If you think you can valuebet both streets you shouldnt value check. But I wouldnt do that

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he has some kind of a heart draw 3/4th of the time.So approximately 15% of the times you can value bet both turn and river.And that makes me lean to bet turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is easily offset by the number of times he has a hand that folds to a turn bet but bluffs river and by the times we prevent getting c/r by a flopped flush or a straight.

I dunno why you would think villain has a heart with 75% probability. He prolly peels his entire range on that flop meaning he has a heart with less than 50% prob.

Anyhoo this debate is meaningless as we are playing a LAGTAG.

Sorry for hijack Joe

Re: Your action?
 

I don't know why villain would be 75% likely to magically have a heart either.

Agree that his flop-peel pretty much means he has any 2 cards.
Wouldn't some of the potential non-heart hands fold to a turn bet here?

I was thinking that to get some of the non-heart 6-outers to fold that would be a good thing. But then I remembered that all those non-heart hands are actually only 4-outers so for that reason perhaps he's drawing so slim that giving the free-card to his outs is fine and dandy and it would be worth attempting to induce a bluff.

Then again, I've been running into all kinds of weird turn CR's when I've least been expecting them so that may be messing with my head somewhat.

Re: Your action?
 

What exactly does betting do for us?

It protects us against non-pair hands that we are ahead of.
But does it really? All of these hands have at best 4 outs against us, and most if not all with a heart will be seeing the river anyway. The pot isn't so big that giving a free card to a 4 outer is a huge mistake.

Are there arguments against Betting?

Yes, the simplest being that, if we are behind it is foolish to not take a free card with so many outs. By betting we give our opponent the most action we will give unimproved to a middling 1 Pair hand, and open ourselves up to being charged the most for our draw from Sets, Straights, and the small percentage of made Flushes.

Another reason to check the Turn is the possibility that villain may semi-bluff CR the turn with a decent heart. This creates the possibility of us folding what may be the best hand on the river, and makes our decision making harder if we improve on the river without making our flush. The aggressiveness of our opponent makes this a decent possibility.


My vote is check, raising if a heart or 5 that falls on the river and calling if we improve with a non-heart 9 or A. Whether or not to call the river unimproved is a judgment call based on what falls on the river and opponent reads. I lean most towards folding unimproved most of the time. I think we will end up paying off too many hands and foregoing some of the advantages of checking the Turn.

Re: Your action?
 

If you're going to check the turn I think you have to call practically all rivers, don't you?

Re: Your action?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Apanage.


[ QUOTE ]

This is easily offset by the number of times he has a hand that folds to a turn bet but bluffs river and by the times we prevent getting c/r by a flopped flush or a straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

It really comes down to how many non-paired non-heart hands he is bad enough to peel flop with that he still folds to a turn bet with a turn card that can´t be too threatening from his point of view.
I think he has to bluff river well over 50% to make a turn check correct. Maybe he does

Besides that isn´t Stox making an incorrect calculation of the freecard cost in his chapter about the turn value check?
Shouldn´t the bet we lose to villain when he hit his hand be included too (if we assume that villain would fold the turn if we bet)?
I guess I´m the one who is most likely to be wrong.But can you explain to me why we shouldn´t calculate that bet too.
Not because you have written the stuff but because you´re doing more calculations than me on a regular basis.

Re: Your action?
 

Apanage

I am not saying to check vs the 40/10 guy. I am saying to bet vs the LAGTAG and that checking has more merit against a guy with a wider "peel flop - fold turn" range and who is more prone to bluff the river.

I have no idea whether betting or checking is best vs the 40/10 guy as I believe its close. I am just presenting the things I believe you need to consider.

Re: Your action?
 

If a BB 40/10 calls with 100% of his range on the flop, we have an equity edge around 60% on the turn. As BB don't c/ring often a pair, we win money by betting.


Board: 3h 7h 4h 2s
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 39.605% 38.51% 01.10% 10471 298.50 { TT-22, AQs-A2s, K2s+, Q2s+, J2s+, T3s+, 95s+, 85s+, 74s+, 64s+, 54s, AQo-A2o, K2o+, Q5o+, J7o+, T7o+, 97o+, 87o }
Hand 1: 60.395% 59.30% 01.10% 16124 298.50 { Ah9d }

With a J on the river if BB bets with 100% of his range, we are a small underdog. So by calling we loose money against BB (of course it's better than folding). So betting the turn+freeshodown (or fold the river to c/r) is better imo.

Board: 3h 7h 4h 2s Jc
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 59.439% 58.67% 00.77% 345 4.50 { TT-22, AQs-A2s, K2s+, Q2s+, J2s+, T3s+, 95s+, 85s+, 74s+, 64s+, 54s, AQo-A2o, K2o+, Q5o+, J7o+, T7o+, 97o+, 87o }
Hand 1: 40.561% 39.80% 00.77% 234 4.50 { Ah9d }

edit: I didn't take into account the fact than BB can have a flush and we can catch an ace on the river, but it's marginal.

Re: Your action?
 

French

You cant make that conclusion in that way.

Making those kind of equity calculations does not take into account what he does with his various holdings.

Say he has 97 no hearts. If he folds to a turn bet but bluffs the river you dont want him to fold it.

In other words: When deciding whether to bet you dont care about his range before you bet . You care about his range when he calls, raises and folds.

Since its a turn decision you also need to consider what he does with his various holdings on different rivers given different turn actions.

Its much more complicated that just stoving it. If you want to do a precise EV calc you need to make assumptions on his strategies given his various possible holdings. You prolly need more than one A4 sheet - even with some simplifying assumptions.

Re: Your action?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you're going to check the turn I think you have to call practically all rivers, don't you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not Really.

Assuming we have goaded villain into betting 100% on the River I think the actions we take the roughly 35% we do improve mitigate the losses we take the percentage of times we don't improve on the River AND our opponent is bluffing.

In short, given my idea of his hand range and the fact that we improve so much of time, I don't think he has a bluffing frequency in his range to make folding to MOST river bets unimproved incorrect.

Re: Your action?
 

Sorry I'm not sure to understand. My point is

1) If I bet turn and play good poker after, I win more money than if the turn was check check and the river check check UI.

2) If I check the turn, even if he's betting 100% of his range on a UI river, I win less money than if the turn was check check and the river check check UI.

Where am I wrong ?

Re: Your action?
 

French. I cant explain my points any better than in my post before. Sorry

Re: Your action?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry I'm not sure to understand. My point is

1) If I bet turn and play good poker after, I win more money than if the turn was check check and the river check check UI.

2) If I check the turn, even if he's betting 100% of his range on a UI river, I win less money than if the turn was check check and the river check check UI.

Where am I wrong ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your EV calculations are really only relevant if this is the last action possible in the hand (ie. your opponent only has 1 more bet)

It doesn't take into account the effects a set, straight or flush check-raising you on the Turn has on the EV of your bet.

It doesn't take into account the effect of you drawing out on a middling 1 pair hand that may or may not have folded to your Turn bet.

etc.

Re: Your action?
 

Bet, gain a bet from a heart, you still have good equity if he has a pair. I'm assuming c/r is bad news for us and it means we don't have to call on A or 9 river although I probably would. His hand really shouldn't be strong enough to c/r here anyway so this looks like a simple spot to put in 1 bet between turn and river and putting the bet in now gives us the option of putting a bet in if we improve on the river. This seems like a really straightforward hand.

Re: Your action?
 

Bump for results. &lt;&gt;&lt;

-DeathDonkey

Re: Your action?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bump for results.

[/ QUOTE ]

The turn was checked through, river was a 6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] The BB bet and showed Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] for the straight.

Re: Your action?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bump for results.

[/ QUOTE ]

The turn was checked through, river was a 6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] The BB bet and showed Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] for the straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

JT,

Do you feel that your Turn check was correct? Why or why not?

Was there any bias to your River calls are were you simply calling any bet. In practice I would likely call like you, but when I analyzed the River decisions from the standpoint of a Turn check, very few cards that we did not improve on were safe, or even necessary to call on from a bluff stopping standpoint.

My analysis was based on a hand range geared more towards low-mid pairs, Mid to Low suited connectors, and several A, K, Q, J-little combinations which I assumed based on his Pre-flop and Flop play.

Re: Your action?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bump for results.

[/ QUOTE ]

The turn was checked through, river was a 6[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] The BB bet and showed Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] for the straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

JT,

Do you feel that your Turn check was correct? Why or why not?

Was there any bias to your River calls are were you simply calling any bet. In practice I would likely call like you, but when I analyzed the River decisions from the standpoint of a Turn check, very few cards that we did not improve on were safe, or even necessary to call on from a bluff stopping standpoint.

My analysis was based on a hand range geared more towards low-mid pairs, Mid to Low suited connectors, and several A, K, Q, J-little combinations which I assumed based on his Pre-flop and Flop play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Nfinity, I saw your discussion with Microbob, and I just wanted to add that like Microbob, I too think that this is one of those situations where if you check the turn you have to call all rivers. My reasoning behind this aproach is that the tag will call this flop with any flush draw, and if we check the turn, most tags are bluffing the river with their nonshowdown hands close to 100% of the time becuz they know that your turn check in this exact spot can easily be a "give up" check as opposed to a "showdown" check.

So given the nature of the board, there are many lesser hands the tag can have to get to the river with since all he needs is a heart in his hand to call the flop. And given the dynamic I mentioned above most tags are going to be bluffing close to 100% of the time with their nonshowdown hands.

I think thats why in this particular case, when we check the turn with this specific hand, we have to call all rivers unless we have a read that says not to.

Re: Your action?
 

[ QUOTE ]

Do you feel that your Turn check was correct? Why or why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

I did. The notes on the player said that the player in question likes to semi-bluff raise the turn HU. I fairly sure he would have bluffed most rivers too.

[ QUOTE ]

Was there any bias to your River calls are were you simply calling any bet. In practice I would likely call like you, but when I analyzed the River decisions from the standpoint of a Turn check, very few cards that we did not improve on were safe, or even necessary to call on from a bluff stopping standpoint. My analysis was based on a hand range geared more towards low-mid pairs, Mid to Low suited connectors, and several A, K, Q, J-little combinations which I assumed based on his Pre-flop and Flop play.


[/ QUOTE ]

I was but I agree with your analysis.

Re: Your action?
 

This is Nina. I agree with everything oink has said in this thread about the turn being a bet vs a tag, but a check vs a loose moron. However


[ QUOTE ]
I did. The notes on the player said that the player in question likes to semi-bluff raise the turn HU. I fairly sure he would have bluffed most rivers too.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes it an easy check IMO.

Re: Your action?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This makes it an easy check IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

???

Bet to induce stupid semibluff from hand with inferior/dominated draw then?

If he semibluff raises with a naked heart its gonna be a huge win for Hero

Re: Your action?
 

his flop calling range = huge.

on the turn your equity vs. this range is very, very good.

since he is not always folding the hands which should be folded and in fact he is RAISING some hands that should be folded, you have a super easy bet.

i think you have an easy bet vs. anyone who plays close to normally anyway. you are going to be ahead so often on the turn that it is hard to beat betting. oink mentioned earlier that it matters what he does with his range on the turn and river, and this is true, but as your equity approaches 100%, betting becomes harder to beat. so now when you have a guy who is actually going to willingly put in more bets with some of his worse hands, betting becomes even better.

i thought it was not close to begin with - with the added read it becomes an even clearer bet.

Re: Your action?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This makes it an easy check IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

???

Bet to induce stupid semibluff from hand with inferior/dominated draw then?

If he semibluff raises with a naked heart its gonna be a huge win for Hero

[/ QUOTE ]

Whenever I see statements like this I always assume the poster is running super hot.

Re: Your action?
 

just given the texture of the board it seems much less likely that villain will peel the flop but not peel the turn if we bet again. Because of this betting the turn becomes much more appealing due to villain likely calling the turn drawing very slim a good portion of the time. So basically it strikes me that % of this guys range that doesn't call a turn bet but bluffs the river is small and thus collecting bets from the portion of his range that is the more profitable choice here (also keep in mind that we likely have about 50% equity against the portion of his range that we are behind).

Re: Your action?
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is Nina. I agree with everything oink has said in this thread about the turn being a bet vs a tag, but a check vs a loose moron. However


[ QUOTE ]
I did. The notes on the player said that the player in question likes to semi-bluff raise the turn HU. I fairly sure he would have bluffed most rivers too.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes it an easy check IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

reread the thread. oink clarified that he didn't mean checking was the correct play against loosey.

I'm pretty sure this is a profitable bet against any realistic player profile. Looks like the unanimous responses in this thread by all of the solid regulars, from various limits both live and online, support this claim.

Re: Your action?
 

Ya

Bet vs LAG, LAGTAG, TAG or loose passive who wont bet river.

Check if and only if villain is "peel any flop but fold a lot of turns, bet when villain shows weakness" moron.

Re: Your action?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ya

Bet vs LAG, LAGTAG, TAG or loose passive who wont bet river.

Check if and only if villain is "peel any flop but fold a lot of turns, bet when villain shows weakness" moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

This I agree with.

I didnt think about it enough and betting to induce bad semi bluffs is likely better. I still feel pretty gross calling down UI though.