[5/10] Check to Induce, Whiff, Value Bet

[WalkAmongUs]

those advocating checking behind on the turn....are you calling any bet on river by villain?

I like a turn bet due to the fact that there is a possibility of getting smaller PP to fold. If you get c/r you have probably 12 outs to fall back on.

If villain c/r you and you hit a flush out on river you're probably going to be able to c/r him on the river as he won't put you on backdoor flush. If villain c/r you on the turn and the river is a blank you can c/f confident you are beaten.

Checking on the turn I think puts you in a situation where you basically have to call a bet by villain. Your turn check screams "I have nothing, feel free to bet the river" Granted, he may have a smaller A, but you also give him the chance to bet all of his PP and any split pairs for value and you have to pay him off.

I'd rather put a bet in on the turn where I have equity than end up being forced to call a river bet w/ 0% equity.

[Xhad]

(replying to multiple posts)

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I can't see even the worst opponents calling with AJ or less.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's one thing to say that your average player isn't calling with a worse hand, but this is ridiculous. I'd even say some supposed TAGs would talk themselves into calling with AJ here. IMO the question of "will he pay off with Ax" isn't as important as "does anyone ever check twice with a pair here?" If he won't pay off with Ax, then maybe I steal half the pot from another AQ? At the most extreme end, if this is never a pair (and with reads I could sometimes come to that conclusion at this point) then I have the nuts so it doesn't matter what his payoff range is.

I'm still not sure this adds up to a bet against an unknown, but it is definitely correct against some people.

WalkAmongUs:

[ QUOTE ]
I like a turn bet due to the fact that there is a possibility of getting smaller PP to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

I strongly doubt it.

[ QUOTE ]
Your turn check screams "I have nothing, feel free to bet the river"

[/ QUOTE ]

I want that to happen! If he's betting this river with any hand he could have then checking the turn >>> betting.

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
Checking on the turn I think puts you in a situation where you basically have to call a bet by villain.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the point.

[WalkAmongUs]

I understand wanting the villain to bet with a worse hand so we can call his bluff but does this outweigh the fact that he will also be betting almost ALL of his legit hands for value and you will be forced to pay him off?

I'd just rather put in that single bet on the turn with a chance to improve and then check behind on the river.

Being c/r on the turn is a fear but only a small one.

If you put in a single bet over the course of the turn and river, I think you get more equity from a bet on the turn than from a call on the river.

I do think it depends on the villain. If he's really aggressive I might favor a check. More passive, I bet.

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand wanting the villain to bet with a worse hand so we can call his bluff but does this outweigh the fact that he will also be betting almost ALL of his legit hands for value and you will be forced to pay him off?

[/ QUOTE ]
Important to notice that if you're betting the turn you'll be paying these legit hands 1-2BBs anyways, while checking you only pay them 0-1BB (given that you don't value bet the river). The question is whether or not we'll induce a bluff from Axish hands enough and how often he c/r a K on the turn. I think the check need to induce a bluff ~20% of the time to make checking>betting on the turn, I think it will against an unknown.

[SeaEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
If you put in a single bet over the course of the turn and river, I think you get more equity from a bet on the turn than from a call on the river.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is only true if villian will fold a better hand and seldom bluff with a worse one. In this specific hand, villian is either ahead and not folding or behind and drawing really thin.

In many hands, it'd be correct for hero to bet the turn but this is a very specific example with a drawless board; no overcards to hero's hand; the risk of a c/r; and if villian is drawing, it's often to a second-best hand.

To OP: the river bet is really thin, but I don't think I mind it given the specific circumstances. I have to admit I'd check this river about 99% of the time though.

[Donkster]

[ QUOTE ]
i would just bet that turn. its the perfect card for you to continue betting.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is an important point and one that I've found to be very true as I've paid attention to it in recent months. Small stakes players always want to put you on a hand they can beat. So, their favorite hand to put you on with any preflop raise is AK. On this flop, they will read your bet as a c/bet and not give you any credit for a hand (which in this case is right); thus, they call the flop bet. Frequently, however, when the A or K hits on the turn (and they don't have one), they will go with their "read" and fold a better hand if you keep betting. So, I will always bet this turn under these circumstances, and then if I get called I check behind UI on the river.

[Xhad]

People who automatically put you on AK are usually fishing for reasons to call. There are other hands they can "refine" their read to now that the K hit and still have 77 be the best hand.

[MoreWineII]

Doesn't villian have to put hero on a range of hands too? Hero 3-bets preflop, bets flop, bets a king turn and villian is still hanging onto his pocket pair thinking it's good ???

I don't know, I guess I think a turn bet folds a better hand more often than most. I'm also not buying that villian is winding up for a turn check-raise. Where's the evidence and why bother anyway?