Simple turn spot

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
or how he plays the turn with hands like 8x8d.

[/ QUOTE ]

His options with 88 on the turn are really just betting out or checking and calling. Check-raising with something like 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]8x seems to be pretty clearly irrational unless Schneids either calls down or folds way too easily. For that reason -- he should require a pretty good flush to check-raise -- I'm less concerned about the check-raise than some of you and more inclined to hold my nose and call it down if it happens.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
or how he plays the turn with hands like 8x8d.

[/ QUOTE ]

His options with 88 on the turn are really just betting out or checking and calling. Check-raising with something like 8[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]8x seems to be pretty clearly irrational unless Schneids either calls down or folds way too easily. For that reason -- he should require a pretty good flush to check-raise -- I'm less concerned about the check-raise than some of you and more inclined to hold my nose and call it down if it happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I agree 100% with what he should and what he likely will do with hands like 8d8x, but specific reads could be what would push me one way or another. Basically it was my way of saying "we're not likely to be getting checkraised here super often and we have sufficient implied odds when we get checkraised since he'll check-call hands like 8x8d and TxTd more often than he'll checkraise with them. The crux of the hand to me seems to be figuring out how often you'll be getting checkraised on the turn here as the amount of bets lost by giving up a free card in this spot is quite monumental.

Rob

[Michael Davis]

Yeah, those chopouts add up to a hefty sum plus the fact that he is sometimes going to 2-out or 4-out you on the river make this a bet. This isn't a good spot for a checkraise although c/c-bet out might be a good line for him with a real hand.

-Michael

[Trencherman]

For everyone's consideration: I debated the option of checking behind with top two on a coordinated board versus a competent opponent in this MHUSH thread a couple months ago. Basically, it is good to avoid bet/folding with nut full house outs when any action from the Villain means a monster. This is especially true when a river bet is likely to go in anyway. However, Hero's play in the linked hand is probably rather controversial, although I did find it to be an interesting scenario when given some thought (and when assuming a capable Villain such as in the OP).

[spino1i]

check with intention of controlling the size of the pot? I cant think of anything else to do and betting here isnt doing you much good as you arent going to get 2 big bets worth of value from your hand (turn & river combined) anyways at this point. Might as well just check behind and check/call river. Maybe bet river if checked to.

[Hock_]

[ QUOTE ]
checking allows him a free draw to chop though if he's lacking a diamond. my two pair is the nuts if he has no diamond.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but what do you put him on? Purely statistically, there's a slightly higher than 50% chance he has a diamond. The fact that he called the flop indicates that the chances are even higher. If he has a diamond then a bet is clearly -EV if he calls, and twice as bad if he raises. If he doesn't have a diamond then there's not much that he calls with, and the turn check might allow him to improve to a hand that would call a river bet or induce a bluff on the river. That there aren't many draws you're worried about now that the 4th diamond hit weighs even more in favor of checking the turn.

Check turn. Call river or bet if checked to.

[The Bryce]

Bet twice, unless you think he's c/ring you. He c/red the flop, so if he has a non-diamond hand it should be pretty strong and you'll often get 2 bets.

[kahntrutahn]

[ QUOTE ]
Thoughts? Should it matter that Alex never believes I have anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

You should tell them he shows down 42-43% on average, probably will influence their thoughts.

[mike l.]

the more i thought about this the more i think this is a spot where your opponent is tricky/expert enough that you shouldnt do the same thing every time. there's no optimal play, it's just a tough spot, so you should revert to game theory. for online play you could have like a game theory die and whenever it's close as to what to do just roll it and act accordingly. sometimes you will bet-fold, sometimes check behind, maybe sometimes even bet-3 bet. keeping your opponents a little off balance against you means a lot against great players and game theory (well what sklansky taught us to call game theory for simplicities sake) is something you should be using pretty often. you dont want players knowing what you would do with much certainty depending on your hand and the board. you dont want a 3 bet on that turn to mean you have to have the nuts.

incidentally, this is why when we talked a long time ago and you said you never donk flops hu from the blinds against a p/f raiser (you always check-(call/raise/fold)) i was aghast. that's a significant leak because your opponent can always count on you to check, and they can take that into account when deciding what hands to raise your blind with p/f. tough shorthanded blind defense should be a balance of donk-(call/3 bet/fold) with all sorts of hands as well as check-() with those same hands.

this turn spot is a bit different because of the free card/chop outs factor, but since your opponents hand is not easy to read and he may play back in a way that puts you in a tough spot you should be varying your play in this spot pretty regularly.