Anything postflop is up for debate

[jkamowitz]

I found another example: pg 189 in Poker Essays 3.

As for the actual hand I think betting vs checking largely depends on the field's understanding of pot odds and whether or not they fall into the "I never chase a gutshot" camps or not.

[jordanx]

Flop check is okay option. This is a tough turn decision.

I say 3-bet. You'll confuse people and probably get a free showdown. You'll clear up some outs. But you're not likely to win unless you improve. The pot is big enough to fight for though.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
id love to hear some reasoning for checking flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wanted to protect my hand and the best way to do it seemed like letting someone bet for me on safe turns so I could raise. This plan can obviously go bad as there are a ton of bad turn cards or something like what happened might come up. Bad turn cards make my hand pretty easy to play, this situation made it sort of tough, but betting the flop felt like a sure thing to put me in a murky situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not bet the flop and let someone check-raise you? Then you can 3-bet if you're worried about protecting your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you knew someone would checkraise then betting would be great, but in these games the majority of the time you'll just get called in four places.

This is basically the same concept as waiting until the turn to raise, except this time no one has bet. It's hand protection as well as getting good value when you're a bigger favorite.

[Justin A]

After thinking about this I like a turn 3bet alot. There's no reason to believe you're not ahead often enough to continue, and 3betting may get the original bettor to fold a hand that has some outs like a gutshot or an A6 type hand.

[n.s.]

[ QUOTE ]
This is basically the same concept as waiting until the turn to raise, except this time no one has bet. It's hand protection as well as getting good value when you're a bigger favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]

When SSHE came out, the small stakes board was full of these sort of hands, with everyone pointing to the example from the book as justification for why they checked behind the flop with very likely the best hand.

Usually, after much debate, the conclusion was that there was a huge difference between waiting to raise (when there's already a bet), and giving everyone "infinite odds" by letting them draw for free. I'm pretty sure Ed Miller said as much.

Frankly, I'm pretty confused right now.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is basically the same concept as waiting until the turn to raise, except this time no one has bet. It's hand protection as well as getting good value when you're a bigger favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]

When SSHE came out, the small stakes board was full of these sort of hands, with everyone pointing to the example from the book as justification for why they checked behind the flop with very likely the best hand.

Usually, after much debate, the conclusion was that there was a huge difference between waiting to raise (when there's already a bet), and giving everyone "infinite odds" by letting them draw for free. I'm pretty sure Ed Miller said as much.

Frankly, I'm pretty confused right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a lot more situations to wait until the turn to raise than there are to check behind. More factors need to fall into place for checking behind to be correct. In this case there are enough opponents and the board is scary enough that I think checking behind is best. Remember a little more than half the deck will make you hate your hand on the turn.

[joy2mike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is basically the same concept as waiting until the turn to raise, except this time no one has bet. It's hand protection as well as getting good value when you're a bigger favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]

When SSHE came out, the small stakes board was full of these sort of hands, with everyone pointing to the example from the book as justification for why they checked behind the flop with very likely the best hand.

Usually, after much debate, the conclusion was that there was a huge difference between waiting to raise (when there's already a bet), and giving everyone "infinite odds" by letting them draw for free. I'm pretty sure Ed Miller said as much.

Frankly, I'm pretty confused right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that the flop check is expert. Isn't this pretty much textbook "Two Overpair Hands" from SSHE? The turn is either going to drive your equity through the roof, or crush you. Pairing the 7 AND putting the flush on the board AND having to face two bets makes this a clear fold on turn and a pat yourself on the back for not inflating the pot on the flop against so many players.

[vmacosta]

I don't like a lot of the analysis in this thread, which is weird because so many good posters showed up. I think the flop check is misapplication of an already controversial play. In this case we have decent bdfd and there are two overcards that could come.

I'd like this play a lot better if we had black AA and the board were 567 all diamonds. In that case there are many more turn cards that would drastically alter our equity.

As played, I think folding the turn is the best play, but its pretty close.

[n.s.]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that the flop check is expert. Isn't this pretty much textbook "Two Overpair Hands" from SSHE?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to belabor the point, but there is a key difference here - in the "Two Overpair Hands", he recommends waiting until the turn to raise, not checking behind.

[joy2mike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I agree that the flop check is expert. Isn't this pretty much textbook "Two Overpair Hands" from SSHE?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to belabor the point, but there is a key difference here - in the "Two Overpair Hands", he recommends waiting until the turn to raise, not checking behind.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I had to get out the book.
Page 188: 2nd full paragraph. Is Ed saying that when the Ah comes the hero should raise?
I have always thought the point is you wait to see if your equity will skyrocket, and boom you raise on the big street to make em pay incorrectly. Or if your equity ditches you can get away from the hand because you are drawing dead.

The turn card is going to define the value of this QQ hand... and unfortunately, in the OP... the value pretty much went to zero.

The only good argument I can think of to betting this flop 7-handed (!!) would be if you expect you might get some help from someone checkraising from EP to try to thin the field. But that's a double or triple parlay.

Now if this is a typical mid-limit hand, with only 2 or 3 others on the flop I think it's a clear bet. 7 players (!!) you gotta play textbook SSHE.