So I was thinking about folding for a moment

[CaptVimes]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hero checks the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Results oriented much?

[/ QUOTE ]

When to use pot control

Pot control is best applied when you have a hand with good showdown value but can't take a lot of heat. It is also good against tighter opponents who often arent calling with the same crap the fish are. It is best applied in a Way Ahead, Way Behind situation.

Pot Control

[Fiksdal]

The merit to bet the turn here is partly for value, but also for control. Betting for control is a concept that most uNLers don't understand enough. I'm working on a longish theory post on this subject.

[CaptVimes]

Your in position. You have control.

Look forward to reading your post.

[Waingro]

I don´t like to put a villain on a super tight range to justify a fold against an unknown. If we fold here we say that villain has set/straight most of the time, QQ-KK or some funky 2pair like T8 some of the time and we are never in a million years ahead. That doesn´t seem right to me, I usually call in these spots against an unknown and I think the Baluga Theorem is way overrated. This guy doesn´t seem like the nitty type so call.

[That Fish]

Small sample size for hands, but he certainly isn't a maniac. Unless you've been doing a lot of raise/CB and he's been folding and getting pissed I have a hard time believing worse hands from him push this turn.

So if this is 2 pair+:
Board: 5s Jd Th 8s
Dead:

equity
hand 0: 21.901% { AsJs }
Hand 1: 78.099% { JJ-TT, 88, 55, Q9s, JTs, T8s, JTo }

.78 x 18.5 = 14.4
.21 x 35.5 = 7.4 -> net -$7


With any piece:
Board: 5s Jd Th 8s
Dead:
equity
Hand 0: 72.253% { AsJs }
Hand 1: 27.747% { JJ-88, 55, AJs-ATs, KJs-KTs, Q9s+, J9s+, T8s+, 98s, 6s5s, AJo-ATo, KJo-KTo, QTo+, J9o+, T9o, 98o }

.72 x 35.5 = 25.6
.27 x 18.5 = 5 -> net $20.6

7/21 = 1/3. So as long as he does this with just about any piece 1/3 of the time it's neutral EV.

[Dr_Mabuse101]

You played it fine. I would call here too.

[Lego05]

Looks like a pretty standard fold to me. He either has you beat or he's bluffing a draw and which do you suppose is more likely.

I don't think either checking behind or bet folding is a lot better than the other.

[ActionStan]

No, not really. You have a really marginal hand. I prefer to control the pot. So, I would check the turn there most of the time.

[ActionStan]

I'm sure betting does have its merrits. I am interested in what you have to post.

But, I think my point is that I am not being results oriented in saying I would check the turn. I would, I do, and I will again. I don't want to build a huge pot with a hand that isn't likely to improve against this board to any great degree. That's the way I roll.

Do I get drawn out on? Sure. Do I induce bluffs? Sure. Are there other ways to play this hand? Sure. But, I check.

[Supwithbates]

[ QUOTE ]
The merit to bet the turn here is partly for value, but also for control. Betting for control is a concept that most uNLers don't understand enough. I'm working on a longish theory post on this subject.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you're merely betting for control a PSB is too big.

That being said, this draw-heavy board definitely merits a double barrel. If your opponent is folding out everything you beat when you double barrel this board then that doesn't mean you shouldn't double barrel this board, it means you should double barrel this board with air a high % of the time if your opponent is going to be such a nit. As I stated in my poobah post a couple weeks back, you should be trying to change opponent's range more than you let him change yours. Make HIM adapt, force HIM to make the mistake.

I don't mind the way you played the hand depending on your table image, history with villain, reads, etc. I think too often uNLers get stuck into this "standard range" mindset because they see opponents' ranges as a given rather than as something they can work to change.