Question about a Stox hand

[tpir]

Kind of a wierd post since the hand was played by stox (high stakes) but was played at 2/4 (low stakes) for one of the videos in his blog. But I wanted to ask this forum about it because this is just where I read.

Stox defends his BB to a steal raise with 76o and checkraises a T53 rainbow flop. He hits a pair of 7's on the turn and says in the commentary "Now I've made a hand so I am just going to check and let him bet." Now that I stop and think about it I can see some reasons to check...but I don't think I would ever check there ever.

Thoughts? Something hugely obvious I am missing?

[RED_RAIN]

Perhaps because now he has showdown value and he can't get raised by a better hand?

Interesting thoughts from stoxs as I typically would bet this turn and check river.

I do wonder if he is taking in consideration this particular opponent or trying to say a 2/4 player would be when checked to as PFR because it appears like he has a draw on flop + turn play.

[tpir]

But we are ahead on the turn so often that betting to protect seems like a much better option given the opponent.

I suppose I am reading into it too much. But I remember reading some Stox posts before where he talked about making turn checks that others do not make. I assume this is one of them where he is showing down either way and protecting against a turn raise/inducing bluffs(?)

[The DaveR]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting thoughts from stoxs as I typically would bet this turn and check river.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would almost never check a river blank if I bet the turn and I was called.

[RED_RAIN]

[ QUOTE ]
I would almost never check a river blank if I bet the turn and I was called.

[/ QUOTE ]

This way I protect myself from being raised by a better hand and induce a bluff from many possible hands.

Just the thought it takes a lot better hand to call than to bet on the river from his perspective.

[gaming_mouse]

probably stox assumes this player will not check behind with overs, which is the only way he can outplay us if we check. OTOH, by betting, we allow better hands to raise us (we'll have to call the raise) and worse hands to call. So IF we can assume that he will not take a free card, checking is the superior play. I'm not convinced that is a safe assumption in general at 2/4, but maybe stox had a read on this opponent.

Anyway, that's my guess.

[stoxtrader]

no read on the opponent, and at 2/4 and the worse the opponent is, the better a turn bet is. most other merits/drawbacks to the line have been touched on, but nobody mentioned that by checking the turn I get a river c/r in if I improve (10 outs maybe?).

anyways, the turn check is certainly not clear, both lines have merits. but I also dont think its a mistake.

[tpir]

Thanks for the response. I hope I did not imply that I thought the check was a mistake. Just looking for some insight into lines of play that I am unfamiliar with.

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
no read on the opponent, and at 2/4 and the worse the opponent is, the better a turn bet is. most other merits/drawbacks to the line have been touched on, but nobody mentioned that by checking the turn I get a river c/r in if I improve (10 outs maybe?).

anyways, the turn check is certainly not clear, both lines have merits. but I also dont think its a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still am confused why c/c is better than leading or c/r'ing. I think we have the best hand much too often here.

was the plan to bet the turn unimproved?

[tpir]

To let a thinking LAG barrel off to our "draw" or "missed bluff"? (Talking in general and not about 2/4 obv.) Something along those lines would be my guess.