Top set vs I Luv Yu 200bb deep

[aislephive]

I bet $100 and he thought and folded. I'm guessing he had like JJ/QQ.

[David1234]

maybe he had FD

[Psydoc]

[ QUOTE ]
maybe he had FD

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd be giving him pretty tempting odds with a $100 bet here if he's got a FD.

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]
I bet $100 and he thought and folded. I'm guessing he had like JJ/QQ.

[/ QUOTE ]

For sure. Tough to get payed off after you cold-call a rr from a supernit and start leading into him.

[OHFreak]

How much do you bet on the river if the turn goes check/check?

[gimmetheloot]

Guys I think a lead here is absolutely necessary. C/r is so bad IMO.

[BalugaWhale]

aha okay so everyone hates my c/r idea

but I am thinking this: On that flop, if he had a true monster or a big pair, he would have raised. If he had a draw , air, or a moderate one-pair hand, he may be willing to A) make a sizable bet on the turn, or B) bet (or call) sizably on the river.

I think leading on the turn lets him escape with the least possible damage. If he has a hand thats going to call a decent turn bet, he's probably betting here.

but maybe i'm wrong.

[ColdSteel]

BW -

FWIW, I like the CR idea. In fact, I think it might be best.

The opponent is not on a draw. He's been identified as a supernit, so we know he's capable of folding a big overpair to continued aggression. If you bet again on the turn, your hand is face-up. As you said, it lets him escape having lost the minimum.

On the other hand if we check now on the turn, we put a little deception in our hand. It now becomes possible that we don't have a set; we might just have a (lower) overpair, a draw, or something as fishy as TP. He'll probably check behind on the turn, but it's not the end of the world. It's not the end of the world because it's not the end of the hand. One more street to go...

OK the turn goes check-check, and the river comes. If the river bricks and we now lead, the opponent will call much more often than if we had bet the turn. Not always, but more often. If the river comes A or K, it's even better for us since some times he has AK. Sure occasionaly he'll over-set us, but very rarely, and the money we make by decieving him more than compensates for those times when we lose.

Everyone is saying that checking the turn is bad poker, but they have failed to say why. So I challenge the nay-sayers to explain why checking is bad poker. Go. Lemme have it...

[gimmetheloot]

Tell me dick, of one hand that we could be c/r here with with this action that villains KK/AA beats?

[David1234]

[ QUOTE ]
BW -

FWIW, I like the CR idea. In fact, I think it might be best.

The opponent is not on a draw. He's been identified as a supernit, so we know he's capable of folding a big overpair to continued aggression. If you bet again on the turn, your hand is face-up. As you said, it lets him escape having lost the minimum.

On the other hand if we check now on the turn, we put a little deception in our hand. It now becomes possible that we don't have a set; we might just have a (lower) overpair, a draw, or something as fishy as TP. He'll probably check behind on the turn, but it's not the end of the world. It's not the end of the world because it's not the end of the hand. One more street to go...

OK the turn goes check-check, and the river comes. If the river bricks and we now lead, the opponent will call much more often than if we had bet the turn. Not always, but more often. If the river comes A or K, it's even better for us since some times he has AK. Sure occasionaly he'll over-set us, but very rarely, and the money we make by decieving him more than compensates for those times when we lose.

Everyone is saying that checking the turn is bad poker, but they have failed to say why. So I challenge the nay-sayers to explain why checking is bad poker. Go. Lemme have it...

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think your hand is totally face up if you bet turn. IMO, you have to be pretty sure he will lay down QQ-AA to check this turn, and we are definitly not sure.