Party $5/10 -- QJs

[SukitTrebek]

i haven't read the other responses...

i would intend to c/r the flop unless the pf raiser was laggy enough he'd raise overcards and protect my hand. once the bb c/r, i'd still expect to be ahead of his hand, as he'd probably c/r with any J, any 9. therefore, i'd check/3bet and hope to knock out the pf raiser's potential AK. if mp2 calls 2 more, i'd check turn and draw to 5 outs, folding UI.

as played, i would c/r the turn every time, it would be unlikely he 3bet the flop for a free turn card with AK.

-Trebek

[Nate tha\\\' Great]

Check-raising is bad. The reason is that against this many opponents on this board, MP can be somewhat selective about which hands he bets -- hands like overcards may well check behind. Obviously, this creates the possibility of a free card for the field, which is terrible.

But it also means that a higher percentage of the time when you check-raise, you're not going to like the result. For example, suppose that you're ahead of MP 6 times out of 10 on this flop -- this is probably about right. However, he checks behind half the time that you're ahead. This would mean that you're a 4:3 underdog those times that he bets.

So I'd just bet out. You prevent a free card, keep the pot size under better control, any may get lucky and be raised by TT or KQ.

[ipitythefool]

lead flop

After the flop action and such a favorable turn it hurt not to see a c/r. My money says MP2 bets 9 out of 10 times if checked to here. It would be decision time to if 3 bet, but I find it unlikely in this particular situation.

OP, you're onto the right idea with trying to protect your hand on the flop but it doesn't work as well in this situation. Now if UTG+1 had led the flop, that would have been an easy raise.

[Jiggymike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I posted this hand mostly because of the flop decision. I think this is a tough decision between betting out and going for the check-raise.

I have good relative position to the PF raiser in terms of check-raising the field. However, my hand is not that strong (and is, in fact , vulnerable) and my pot equity may not be that high.

However, if I bet out then likely MP just calls when he has something like overcards, thus making the pot 10+ SBs to the BB and the limper; or, he raises and isolates me when I am behind.

Since I doubt I can protect my hand on the turn given the pot size and my position, I tend to favor check raising the field and try to exploit my presumed, but silm, pot equity advantage. Plus, if MP2 three-bets me and everyone is trapoed for mutliple bets, a) I hjave a good sense ofwhere I am and can play the rest of the hand accordingly, and b) I have the pot padded which benefits my presumed 5 out (plus weak backdoor staright) draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think many readers here could do well to think more about "betting into the PFR hoping he raises". The bolded part above is very important imo. Generally, betting into the PFR will let the PFR play the hand perfectly, calling when behind and raising when ahead.

In order to bet into a PFR hoping he raises, you need to know that the PFR will raise with a worse hand than yours. This is often not the case. If it is never the case, then you would prefer that villain just calls your bet since you are always behind when he raises.

The problem with checking the flop in this case, though, is that there is a very real chance you will give up a free card. There is no guarantee the PFR bets again especially with this board and 4 players.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see where you got a "slim" pot equity edge from. You are either pretty well ahead or badly behind; TPMK against a bunch of donks is nothing to sneeze at. Overcards are drawing to 6 outs only if they have AK and reverse dominated with AJ or AQ, and anyone with mid pair has 5 outs, while a set or overpair is pretty well ahead of you. Only hand that would be dangerous is an OESD here, and you really can't assume that just because people are in the hand. All a check-raise will accomplish is people checking to you unless they improve, which is good for information purposes but bad for making money. Building a huge pot with a slim equity edge, as you propose, is not really too hot a play.