Your action?

[MicroBob]

Opponent has KsQh and is hoping his heart-draw has a chance. I can read into his soul!!

I'm liking betting now while thinking our hand is best and also having a zillion outs if somehow it isn't.
Enough lesser-heart hands he's going to continue to peel with but if he misses we can't guarantee he's going to bluff the river.

[Tryptamean]

I agree with betting here like everyone else. If opponent had a pair he would have likely check raised the flop imo. Additionally, I'm not sure a decent tag will be bluffing the river often enough to pass up value on a turn bet, because your line would look like a value check. I'm torn between calling down a turn check raise tho. If he can hand read, he should see that he won't be able to push you off Ace hi on the turn, so he's committed to firing the river also, so not the ideal spot for him to bluff.

[Tryptamean]

Another reason to bet: if he has the king or queen of hearts (possibly any heart), he will usually bet/call a heart river whether he has initiative of not, so your implied odds on hitting your flush are the same either way.

[Apanage]

[ QUOTE ]
Opponent has KsQh and is hoping his heart-draw has a chance. I can read into his soul!!

[/ QUOTE ]

I´m little bit puzzled of what you´re trying to say..So to be perfectly clear.
I think that our 40/10 villain 75% of the time has a heart in his hand in which case he calls or checkraises turn.If another heart falls on river he will call/bet river too.
This fact plus the fact that we have lots of outs if behind makes this a clear value bet instead of a turn value check even against a 40/10 player IMO.

[Oink]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Apanage.

I agree. If you think you can valuebet both streets you shouldnt value check. But I wouldnt do that

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he has some kind of a heart draw 3/4th of the time.So approximately 15% of the times you can value bet both turn and river.And that makes me lean to bet turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is easily offset by the number of times he has a hand that folds to a turn bet but bluffs river and by the times we prevent getting c/r by a flopped flush or a straight.

I dunno why you would think villain has a heart with 75% probability. He prolly peels his entire range on that flop meaning he has a heart with less than 50% prob.

Anyhoo this debate is meaningless as we are playing a LAGTAG.

Sorry for hijack Joe

[MicroBob]

I don't know why villain would be 75% likely to magically have a heart either.

Agree that his flop-peel pretty much means he has any 2 cards.
Wouldn't some of the potential non-heart hands fold to a turn bet here?

I was thinking that to get some of the non-heart 6-outers to fold that would be a good thing. But then I remembered that all those non-heart hands are actually only 4-outers so for that reason perhaps he's drawing so slim that giving the free-card to his outs is fine and dandy and it would be worth attempting to induce a bluff.

Then again, I've been running into all kinds of weird turn CR's when I've least been expecting them so that may be messing with my head somewhat.

[Nfinity]

What exactly does betting do for us?

It protects us against non-pair hands that we are ahead of.
But does it really? All of these hands have at best 4 outs against us, and most if not all with a heart will be seeing the river anyway. The pot isn't so big that giving a free card to a 4 outer is a huge mistake.

Are there arguments against Betting?

Yes, the simplest being that, if we are behind it is foolish to not take a free card with so many outs. By betting we give our opponent the most action we will give unimproved to a middling 1 Pair hand, and open ourselves up to being charged the most for our draw from Sets, Straights, and the small percentage of made Flushes.

Another reason to check the Turn is the possibility that villain may semi-bluff CR the turn with a decent heart. This creates the possibility of us folding what may be the best hand on the river, and makes our decision making harder if we improve on the river without making our flush. The aggressiveness of our opponent makes this a decent possibility.


My vote is check, raising if a heart or 5 that falls on the river and calling if we improve with a non-heart 9 or A. Whether or not to call the river unimproved is a judgment call based on what falls on the river and opponent reads. I lean most towards folding unimproved most of the time. I think we will end up paying off too many hands and foregoing some of the advantages of checking the Turn.

[MicroBob]

If you're going to check the turn I think you have to call practically all rivers, don't you?

[Apanage]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Apanage.


[ QUOTE ]

This is easily offset by the number of times he has a hand that folds to a turn bet but bluffs river and by the times we prevent getting c/r by a flopped flush or a straight.

[/ QUOTE ]

It really comes down to how many non-paired non-heart hands he is bad enough to peel flop with that he still folds to a turn bet with a turn card that can´t be too threatening from his point of view.
I think he has to bluff river well over 50% to make a turn check correct. Maybe he does

Besides that isn´t Stox making an incorrect calculation of the freecard cost in his chapter about the turn value check?
Shouldn´t the bet we lose to villain when he hit his hand be included too (if we assume that villain would fold the turn if we bet)?
I guess I´m the one who is most likely to be wrong.But can you explain to me why we shouldn´t calculate that bet too.
Not because you have written the stuff but because you´re doing more calculations than me on a regular basis.

[Oink]

Apanage

I am not saying to check vs the 40/10 guy. I am saying to bet vs the LAGTAG and that checking has more merit against a guy with a wider "peel flop - fold turn" range and who is more prone to bluff the river.

I have no idea whether betting or checking is best vs the 40/10 guy as I believe its close. I am just presenting the things I believe you need to consider.