100NL Playing 65s aggressively
 

Villain is 18/3

Poker Stars, $0.50/$1 NL Hold'em Cash Game, 9 Players
LeggoPoker Hand History Converter

UTG+1: $69.65
UTG+2: $108.90
MP1: $81.90
MP2: $16.50
Hero (CO): $141.50
BTN: $89.45
SB: $125.25
BB: $14.80
UTG: $87.65

Pre-Flop: 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] dealt to Hero (CO)
2 folds, UTG+2 calls $1, MP1 calls $1, MP2 folds, <font color="red">Hero raises to $6</font>, 4 folds, MP1 calls $5

Flop: ($14.50) 4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (2 Players)
MP1 checks, <font color="red">Hero bets $10</font>, MP1 calls $10

Turn: ($34.50) J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (2 Players)
MP1 checks, <font color="red">Hero ??</font>

Villain can peel this flop with a wide range of hands. I don't think his range stands a lot of heat against a 2nd barrel. However when he raises my bet, I won't get the proper odds to call. Is bet/folding OK, or am I destined to check here?

Re: Playing 65s aggressively
 

The turn is basically a blank.

I think stack sizes favor a check here because you don't want to bet/fold and miss your chance to stack him on the river if he slowplayed something good.

Re: Playing 65s aggressively
 

I think there's an argument for 2nd barreling because it'd make him fold 77-55, A8, and a lot of other crap, but getting checkraised by a set would suck really bad. Still, I like 2nd barreling better than checking against this type of player because he'll fold on the turn really often.

edit: That's what I'd do if he had a full stack. I didn't notice his stack size until SABR posted while I was typing the above. I agree with what he said. If you hit the straight raise all in if he bets the river

Re: Playing 65s aggressively
 

Check behind and take a free card. If you hit your staight and he had something with which to c/c the flop planning to crai on the turn, then you'll bust him on the river.

You also retain the option to bluff at a blank river (or scarecard river) if he checks that to you as well. So, check.

Re: Playing 65s aggressively
 

[ QUOTE ]
Check behind and take a free card. If you hit your staight and he had something with which to c/c the flop planning to crai on the turn, then you'll bust him on the river.

You also retain the option to bluff at a blank river (or scarecard river) if he checks that to you as well. So, check.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is your best option. Also, alot of weak players at this level will bet the min or something close to it with a real weak hand they just want to showdown. If this happens I raise em pretty big and you will most likely take the pot.

Re: Playing 65s aggressively
 

I usually take the free card here and value bet big when I hit

Re: Playing 65s aggressively
 

Does this fall under the category of betting may be +EV, but checking is ++EV?

Re: Playing 65s aggressively
 

[ QUOTE ]
Check behind and take a free card. If you hit your staight and he had something with which to c/c the flop planning to crai on the turn, then you'll bust him on the river.

You also retain the option to bluff at a blank river (or scarecard river) if he checks that to you as well. So, check.

[/ QUOTE ]

at SSNL it's really bad to fire river without betting turn. you get looked up super light. To thinking players, they may/may not fold depending on if river is a face card, but in general it's only one more bet to "see" your cards, and of course you're always on air anyways.

Re: Playing 65s aggressively
 

I realised that it makes a lot of difference whether he had a full stack to start with, or just $80 in this case. You have a lot of FE, because in most cases villain holds a hand here on which he can't risk his whole stack. Sure he could hold a monster and it would suck to get c/rai. But more often he's holding a marginal hand and we can take the pot down with 6 high.

I agree with checking here. Villain only has $65 behind, which makes it less likely that he will fold than if he had still $85 behind.

Re: Playing 65s aggressively
 

would check