How's this hand?

[skilled]

I concur as well. My standard line is call down all the way. Given the way you played it on the flop, my advice would be to fold too.

[Catt]

I thought and think gehrig's comment was excellent advice. But I may be taking a different approach than others -- I think the key bit of it is, when faced with aggressive and erratic players, don't take any action to make the pot bigger if your own actions could lead you to fold later in the hand given your opponent's responses. I think raising the flop or otherwise putting more bets in with a guy with these sorts of stats over this number of hands is appropriate in lots of situations (and appropriate here).

I'm fine with raising the flop here against this guy; I would basically never fold the turn even if 3-bet on the flop (absent something more specific regarding a read). I would also almost never fold the river, though that depends on what the river and turn cards were.

I wouldn't ever raise the flop (or raise the turn) against a guy like this if I thought a reraise meant I should give up -- I just don't think against this sort of player you can give that much credence to raises or reraises on these sorts of boards after this pre-flop action. So, I'm not saying I would refrain from raising -- I'm just saying that if I do raise it would be with the firm decision to see a showdown (i.e., I'd never make the pot bigger and fold later in the hand).

In this hand, I'd probably C/R flop just as OP did. But I'd either C/R or call turn instead of folding. And if I thought that taking these sorts of lines was spewing, then I'd likely not C/R flop in the first place -- I'd just look to get to S/D without folding.

[milesdyson]

Ehhhhh well there's obviously a gray area then.

"I would basically never fold the turn even if 3-bet on the flop"

So you would fold it sometimes. Is the ace not the worst possible card you could see here? So you're saying you'd play it the same way as OP, then, but you later say you wouldn't fold this hand (ever). You just misphrased this, right?

Basically what I'm getting at is, I'm sure OP would have called down on probably any other turn card. So, I don't think his flop raise directly caused him not to get to showdown. That turn card + the information from the villain's flop 3-bet led to the fold. It is hard to trust this guy, yes, but that doesn't mean you just totally ignore your experiences in the past with similar players. The most likely hand you beat just got there on the turn, do you agree? Did hero's check raise cost him the showdown here or did it get him the information he needed to be able to make the fold on a bad turn card?

On the other hand, if hero had check called the flop, there is pretty much no way he can just check fold the turn. Obviously the reason here is that the turn is the perfect card for that dude to follow through on with something like KQ or QTs.

There is a happy medium, somewhere. Not too black and white IMO. Turn A, river K, I think everyone here is folding regardless (even if they just check called the whole way). Turn Q, river J? Turn K, river T? You're saying that you would only check raise if you knew you would go to show down anyway, but at some point the flop check raise has to get you "enough" info to let you fold. I think that's just the nature of it.

/ramble....

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
Ehhhhh well there's obviously a gray area then.

"I would basically never fold the turn even if 3-bet on the flop"

So you would fold it sometimes. Is the ace not the worst possible card you could see here? So you're saying you'd play it the same way as OP, then, but you later say you wouldn't fold this hand (ever). You just misphrased this, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I'm saying that if I chose to C/R and got three-bet on this flop, then I'd pretty much never fold the turn absent the most terrible card I could imagine -- if there were a bunch of turn cards I'd be inclined to fold, then I wouldn't C/R the flop. With some sort of specific post-flop read of this player, combined with a very nasty turn card, I might still fold the turn after a flop C/R and call. The A is nasty; the A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] might me the nasty nail in the coffin with the right read on this player. Might still be worth a C/R and fold. But if I thought an A was nasty enough to abandon the hand, I probably wouldn't ever C/R the flop.

[ QUOTE ]
Basically what I'm getting at is, I'm sure OP would have called down on probably any other turn card. So, I don't think his flop raise directly caused him not to get to showdown. That turn card + the information from the villain's flop 3-bet led to the fold. It is hard to trust this guy, yes, but that doesn't mean you just totally ignore your experiences in the past with similar players.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do your past experiences with these sorts of players, cobined with this player's flop three-bet when faced with a flop C/R, tell you about his hand, and how does this A affect it? My point is that you cannot possibly approach a generic player like this with a view "damn; he three-bet my flop C/R; and now a less-than-helpful turn card; guess I better fold." If you think that you can ascribe that much information to a flop 3-bet from this guy, then you better have a post-flop read (beyond stats) to justify it, because the stats alone indicate that HU on the flop he could be three-betting you with an eff'ing huge range, and the A, while shrinking your "I'm winning range," does not in any way result in a "time to fold" decision.

[ QUOTE ]
The most likely hand you beat just got there on the turn, do you agree?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Because I have very little basis to conclude what the most likely hand is. I agree that the A is not necessarily a great card -- but that depends a lot on our opponent. He's 54/31 over almost 600 hands -- I generally do not infer a rational basis for hand ranges with those stats; and while I agree that the A reduces the field of hands we're beating on the turn, it does not somehow add information that allows me to conclude that the "most likely" hand just got there. His range is still really big and includes more than enough hands that are behind to mine that C/Ring the flop and C/Folding the turn seems to me very bad. Again, if I were planning to fold to a turn A when Villain continues in the hand, I'd be more inclined to not raise the flop; if I raise the flop against this Villain, I cannot ascribe enough meaningful information about his hand range to conclude that the turn A now dictates a fold from me given my hand.

[ QUOTE ]
Did hero's check raise cost him the showdown here or did it get him the information he needed to be able to make the fold on a bad turn card?

On the other hand, if hero had check called the flop, there is pretty much no way he can just check fold the turn. Obviously the reason here is that the turn is the perfect card for that dude to follow through on with something like KQ or QTs.

There is a happy medium, somewhere. Not too black and white IMO. Turn A, river K, I think everyone here is folding regardless (even if they just check called the whole way). Turn Q, river J? Turn K, river T? You're saying that you would only check raise if you knew you would go to show down anyway, but at some point the flop check raise has to get you "enough" info to let you fold. I think that's just the nature of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you missed why I thought gehrig's comment was so valuable -- when faced with a retardly aggressive and erratic player, we should not be making any aggessive moves with a view that they will prodice anything of value in terms of information -- if we want to take a line that involves making the pot bigger than it needs to be, we should be doing so with a view that doing so extracts value from the opponent; if we're doing so because we think it will enable us to make a better decision about when to lay down a hand, then we ought to stop and ask ourselves whether or not that's even possible facing a "retardly aggressive and erractic player." On a flop with a FD and with no obvious individual pips that favor a (presumably) rationally-perceived UTG raise from us, giving his flop three-bet that much credit, so that a continuation bet on an A means we should fold, seems nuts. And hence my whole-hearted support for gehrig's comment that (paraphrased): don't make the pot big if you're planning on folding before SD depending on Villain's reaction; better to see SD cheaply than pump and fold.

[gehrig]

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, if hero had check called the flop, there is pretty much no way he can just check fold the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]
i think hero should be much more willing to c/f the turn if only one bet went in on the flop