bottom 2-pair on the turn
 

Here's a hand I think I misplayed just a bit. maybe.

small stake on ftp.
I raise 65d on the button. BB 3-bets. I call.

The flop is a beauty:

Q65. rainbow.

BB bets. I fastplay again and raise. He calls.

Turn K. he check-raises. My play?

thanks,
Eric

Re: bottom 2-pair on the turn
 

Does the turn K put a flush draw out now? That makes a big difference.

threeball and call down a cap assuming the river isn't bad

Somehow I expect to be asked to explain myself.

Re: bottom 2-pair on the turn
 

[ QUOTE ]
Does the turn K put a flush draw out now? That makes a big difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't notice it at the time. Could have. If it makes a difference how does it effect your play?

thanks,
Eric

Re: bottom 2-pair on the turn
 

It widens opponents c/r range to me. Villain could have been leading any pair or a straight draw into you and now he's picked up a bunch of extra outs. Villains play is how I would play 87s, 43s or a pair against some opponents if I picked up a flush draw on the turn. Not that I'd call 34 pf but that's neither here nor there.

If the K doesn't put out an additional draw out I think I'm revising my original answer. What hands could villain reasonably c/r here? I think the range question is kind of esoteric because this is a blind steal situation. It's much harder to pin down a reasonable range, imo.

If we're believing villain's story here and the K doesn't put out a flush draw I have a hard time putting him on a hand that doesn't have us beat here unless he would do this with just a Q or K. The question is then what hand does he b/c the flop with that contains no pair and a K? Nothing reasonable, I guess. I think KQ would have threeballed preflop and/or on the flop. The only logical hands that beat us are are K5, K6 and then there are the unlikely combos of 55, 66, KK or QQ (I'm discounting the big pairs very, very, VERY much). To me, that means the majority of the time villain's range has picked up outs here and is semi-bluffing us. That makes it an easy threebang. All of this is predicated on the turn putting out two of a suit.

Of course, if the turn completes the rainbow villain's story is much more likely to be straightforward and I'm calling down barring improvement.

Re: bottom 2-pair on the turn
 

call. raise a non-counterfeit river.

you can fold to a river 3 bet.

Re: bottom 2-pair on the turn
 

i figure most two pair hands are fairly robust hands HU. agaisnt a PFR we are able to narrow down his "action" holdings to a pretty tight distribution. if we 3bet the turn and bet the river and he calls we have 4 big bets go in on the big streets. this is acceptable and likely profitable in terms of action given in relation to his likely range.

but there's a problem. us 3betting the turn doesn't guarantee that we necessarily get called down every time. also, when we do get called down it's going to be from the stronger portion of his distribution and thus a lesser probality of occurrence decreasing it's frequency.

but even more importantly, if he will checkraise the turn with a one pair hand, and then bet the river and payoff a raise we come out even further ahead. our edge when the money goes in on the river will be greater than when it goes in on the turn. villain could have significant number of outs on the turn, while on the river all of the cards have been dealt and the value is essentially static.
this is additionally influenced by the fact that it's conceivable that we get paid off by a wider range of worse hands taking this line because it's a little different(so may get a wtf? i call reaction) and puts in the extra action when the board is the safest.

Re: bottom 2-pair on the turn
 

[ QUOTE ]

If we're believing villain's story here and the K doesn't put out a flush draw I have a hard time putting him on a hand that doesn't have us beat here unless he would do this with just a Q or K. The question is then what hand does he b/c the flop with that contains no pair and a K? Nothing reasonable, I guess. I think KQ would have threeballed preflop and/or on the flop. The only logical hands that beat us are are K5, K6 and then there are the unlikely combos of 55, 66, KK or QQ (I'm discounting the big pairs very, very, VERY much). To me, that means the majority of the time villain's range has picked up outs here and is semi-bluffing us. That makes it an easy threebang. All of this is predicated on the turn putting out two of a suit.


[/ QUOTE ]

His play here is consistent with AK or AA. BB did three-ball pre-flop, but I have no idea why you think KQ might not just call the flop. I think that 66 and 55 are more reasonable hands for the villain to hold than K6 or K5.

I would be tempted to take the line of just calling down unless counterfeited or unless a five or a six falls on the river, in which case I would raise but maybe just call a three-bet.

Re: bottom 2-pair on the turn
 

[ QUOTE ]
If we're believing villain's story here and the K doesn't put out a flush draw I have a hard time putting him on a hand that doesn't have us beat here unless he would do this with just a Q or K.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think an aggressive player could do this for value with AQ, AK, and AA (30 combos). AQ I'd probably discount by half at least, as the king may scare them into check-calling the turn, so make that 24 combos.

Of course, KQ, KK, and QQ would play like this as well (15 combos).

24:15. I like those odds... definitely I'm going to put in another raise. Now or river?

[ QUOTE ]
I think KQ would have threeballed preflop and/or on the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

double-check the action and reevaluate. There was a preflop 3-bet.

Re: bottom 2-pair on the turn
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think that 66 and 55 are more reasonable hands for the villain to hold than K6 or K5.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this due to the preflop 3-bet, but none of these hands are very likely, particularly since we hold 65 ourselves. There is only 1 combo of 66 and 55 left, and he probably doesn't 3-bet that preflop (typical player I mean... I don't know anything about THIS guy).

[ QUOTE ]
His play here is consistent with AK or AA...

...I would be tempted to take the line of just calling down...

[/ QUOTE ]

AA = 6
AK = 12

KK = 3
QQ = 3
KQ = 9

That's slightly in favor of you being beaten (18:15) if you completely discount AQ. Of course, he'll have other random hands at times... a random JT or bluff going all the way. Calling down feels too passive but might be reasonable.

Re: bottom 2-pair on the turn
 

Bingo. Great post James.

In the hand I unthinkingly 3-bet. Villain called. River he check calls and shows AA.

Upon further reflection I realized that calling the turn is better. After 3-betting I narrowed his hand range to

{AA, AK, AQ(discounted), KK, QQ, KQs, small % of random crap}

against this range, I know exactly what his outs are... any A, K or Q means I am beaten. Anyhing else means I have an edge. Further, there is no river card that will cause him to check the hands I am beating.

This is a perfect spot to just call the turn check-raise, and wait to raise the river until I am sure it's one I like. I get an extra bet from the random spew-bluffs, and save money when he draws out on the river, or when he already had me but appears to have drawn out (as much as two big bets if I have the courage to fold given my read).

By 3-betting the turn, I lose one extra big bet (at least) any time an A, K, or Q would have hit the river. That means I've lost probably 1/3 to a 1/2 a big bet with my unthinking play. Ouch!

Note that the play would be exactly the same holding KQ... Wait for the river, then raise if it isn't an ace, 6, or 5.

-eric