3/6 Party -- AK oop -- should I have fired again on turn?

[srjunkacct]

No stats on Villain. He's been at the table for 4-5 orbits, hasn't played too many hands and hasn't done anything too provocative yet. Comments on all streets appreciated.

Party Poker ($3/$6 limit). Hand converted by Check Raised hand converter

Preflop (8 players): Hero is SB with
HERO posts small blind.
BB posts big blind.
[seat8] calls [2.33:1].
UTG+1 folds [2.33:1].
MP1 folds [2.33:1].
MP2 folds [2.33:1].
CO folds [2.33:1].
BTN folds [2.33:1].
HERO 2 bets.
BB calls [5:1].
[seat8] calls [6:1].

Flop (6 small bets ($18) in pot, 3 players):

HERO bets.
BB folds [7:1].
[seat8] calls [8:1].

Turn (4 bets ($24) in pot, 2 players):

HERO checks.
[seat8] bets.
HERO calls [6:1].

River (6 bets ($36) in pot, 2 players):

HERO checks.
[seat8] bets.
HERO ??? [7:1].

[Man of Means]

This is a tough spot generally. Your line is good, you can assume that villain has caught a piece of the flop, with two cards in the play zone, the straight draw, and possibility he limped with a mid PP. Based on this, he is probably calling down your bet partially to get a read on you.

An alternative line is to bet the turn and check/call river (you may pick off a busted-draw bluff in a largish pot and gain info on unknown player's limp/calldown range). And if you are raised on the turn, call and fold UI. Personally I like this better against the unknown even though it seems to be more expensive if you are behind.

btw - as played, fold river. I think he's value betting a pair or better.

[You're No Daisy]

Villain hasn't played much in 4-5 orbits, therefore you have to assume he's a tight player and got a piece of the flop, probably top pair or top two pair. You have at best 10 outs on the flop (four Tens, three Aces, three Kings) and have been called all the way down to the River. You should have either folded the Turn or bet at it, then checked the river hoping villain checks as well. As it stands now, I would fold on the River since your hand didn't improve.

Adam

[Mr_Donktastic]

[ QUOTE ]
Villain hasn't played much in 4-5 orbits, therefore you have to assume he's a tight player and got a piece of the flop, probably top pair or top two pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a terrible assumption to make. All villian did was limp preflop, call a raise and call a bet on the flop. There is no reason to put him on top pair or top two - he could have an underpair or a str8 draw for all we know.

And I would definitely bet the turn. Most likely you will either win it right there or get called, which are both ok. Getting raised would suck but its worth the risk I think.

If you check most villains will bet at you like 99% of the time with just about anything and you'll have no idea where you're at in the hand.

[W. Deranged]

Ryan,

Why is getting called "okay"? Is it okay when villain has a better hand and would have checked through and given a free card?

Betting might be good here, but it has definite costs. Getting raised really sucks, as we lose our chance to see the river, and that definitely costs us something. Getting called when we have the worse hand and villain would check behind also costs us something.

Obviously, on the other hand, checking the turn when villain would have folded a worse hand if we bet also sucks, but how much? We give away a free card to a hand with like 3-7 outs, in a 4 BB pot. That's a pretty small cost, honestly. If he would have called with a worse hand incorrectly, we actually give up a little bit more; something like .5 BB. That's a sizeable cost.

The only time checking is really bad is when villain would have folded a better hand. This is maybe the least likely scenario (less likely than us getting raised).


My point is simply that there are costs to checking and costs to betting. Saying that betting is "okay" no matter what is missing the subtlety of the decision.

I think the difference between betting and checking this turn is probably relatively small. Against an unknown, I tend to assume that he's not usually folding a better hand to me, but probably always calling with a much worse hand. I also tend to tilt toward the option that is lower variance and less likely to put me to a hard decision (all else being equal). That's why I'd probably check here.

[Mr_Donktastic]

When I said getting called was "okay" I meant compared to check/calling. It costs one bet either way, has some fold equity (I think more than some of you give credit for), and keeps you in control of the hand. The only dowside is that you could get raised but imo the benefits outweigh the risks.

Check/calling and check/folding UI only gives you one way to win the pot...you have to improve, and most of the time that doesn't happen.

The more aggressive line is probably higher variance as you mention but to me it seems like higher EV too, but that's just a hunch.

[Man of Means]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Villain hasn't played much in 4-5 orbits, therefore you have to assume he's a tight player and got a piece of the flop, probably top pair or top two pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a terrible assumption to make. All villian did was limp preflop, call a raise and call a bet on the flop. There is no reason to put him on top pair or top two - he could have an underpair or a str8 draw for all we know.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think what is meant by "piece of the flop" is that villain probably has a hand worth calling a turn bet and probably betting it if checked to. You know this board really doesn't look too safe for a preflop raiser against a tight player's UTG limp range (mid pocket pairs, high SC's), and if he has a brain he knows this too.

Then again, maybe he's getting bored and decided to call the flop with 65 and see what happens, maybe use his image capital.

[You're No Daisy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Villain hasn't played much in 4-5 orbits, therefore you have to assume he's a tight player and got a piece of the flop, probably top pair or top two pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a terrible assumption to make. All villian did was limp preflop, call a raise and call a bet on the flop. There is no reason to put him on top pair or top two - he could have an underpair or a str8 draw for all we know.


[/ QUOTE ]
Ryan,

I don't really think it's a stretch to assume villian is tight. With 8 players at the table, 4-5 orbits is 32-40 hands, and if he's only played 5-6 hands he's under 20% VPIP. If my read on villian is correct that he's tight and possibly passive (which isn't a stretch since he didn't raise on any street), then being UTG with QJ or QT offsuit is a hand he'd probably limp with since these are maginal hands from this position seeking to hit a big flop. Which possibly villain has done.

Adam

[Mr_Donktastic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Villain hasn't played much in 4-5 orbits, therefore you have to assume he's a tight player and got a piece of the flop, probably top pair or top two pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a terrible assumption to make. All villian did was limp preflop, call a raise and call a bet on the flop. There is no reason to put him on top pair or top two - he could have an underpair or a str8 draw for all we know.


[/ QUOTE ]
Ryan,

I don't really think it's a stretch to assume villian is tight. With 8 players at the table, 4-5 orbits is 32-40 hands, and if he's only played 5-6 hands he's under 20% VPIP. If my read on villian is correct that he's tight and possibly passive (which isn't a stretch since he didn't raise on any street), then being UTG with QJ or QT offsuit is a hand he'd probably limp with since these are maginal hands from this position seeking to hit a big flop. Which possibly villain has done.

Adam

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that suited broadway are in his range but where are you getting this info from? Played 5 or 6 hands? Has vpip under 20? Is tight/passive?

Either I'm missing something or you are making all of this up.

This is all OP said:

No stats on Villain. He's been at the table for 4-5 orbits, hasn't played too many hands and hasn't done anything too provocative yet.

[You're No Daisy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Villain hasn't played much in 4-5 orbits, therefore you have to assume he's a tight player and got a piece of the flop, probably top pair or top two pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a terrible assumption to make. All villian did was limp preflop, call a raise and call a bet on the flop. There is no reason to put him on top pair or top two - he could have an underpair or a str8 draw for all we know.


[/ QUOTE ]
Ryan,

I don't really think it's a stretch to assume villian is tight. With 8 players at the table, 4-5 orbits is 32-40 hands, and if he's only played 5-6 hands he's under 20% VPIP. If my read on villian is correct that he's tight and possibly passive (which isn't a stretch since he didn't raise on any street), then being UTG with QJ or QT offsuit is a hand he'd probably limp with since these are maginal hands from this position seeking to hit a big flop. Which possibly villain has done.

Adam

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that suited broadway are in his range but where are you getting this info from? Played 5 or 6 hands? Has vpip under 20? Is tight/passive?

Either I'm missing something or you are making all of this up.

This is all OP said:

No stats on Villain. He's been at the table for 4-5 orbits, hasn't played too many hands and hasn't done anything too provocative yet.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ryan,

You just made my point. Villain hasn't played too many hands in 4-5 orbits. At an 8 person table, 4 orbits is 32 hands, 5 orbits is 40 hands. So lets make an educated guess that not playing too many hands means 5-6 hands not including the SB & BB. Either way, when we don't include the blinds, that gives villain a VPIP under 20% which most poker tracking software would consider tight. The fact that the OP said villain hasn't done anything "too provocative" would lead me to believe he's a little passive. So I'm not making things up, I'm just going on what little information I have from this post.

Adam