Common turn problem - QQ

[StellarWind]

5-handed Hero opens QQ UTG. Very loose/passive button calls and SB calls.

Flop AT3 two-suited you don't have one. Hero bets, Button calls, and SB folds. HU to the turn for 4.5 BB.

Turn is off ten. Now what?

[private joker]

Sounds like you can comfortably bet/fold this, Stellar. If he's very passive, then you won't be a big enough favorite to call down getting 7.5:1 immediate against a turn raise (effectively 9.5:2). But given that the board is drawy and loose/passives like to cold-call with hands like KJ/QJ and chase gutshots -- not to mention the flush draw on board -- then you still have a turn value bet to protect from that draw. I also wouldn't expect a turn raise to be a semi-bluff very often given your read.

If called, I would consider c/f the river if you think he's too passive to bluff a missed draw.

[Oink]

I'd bet this one and I'd valuebet any 2, 4, 5 and J for sure. Maybe even vb any river - dunno about that.

Cant call a raise obviously.

If I somehow thought he might fold a gutshot on the turn and fire river with any2 if turn cks through I would valuecheck.

The loose passives in my games dont fold gutters tho

[Nick C]

Give Villain a starting range of any ace, KT-T8, any two broadways, any PP, any two suited, and any 0-gapped or 1-gapped connectors, stipulate that Villain needs at least a pair or a gutshtot to get past the flop, and we're behind on the turn approximately as often as we're ahead (unless I just did the rough math grossly wrong), but with the worst of the outs, giving us an equity disadvantage.

And, okay, maybe Villain isn't so loose as to play A4o versus a preflop raise, but if he isn't, then hands like 53o and 42o and 92s may fail to make the cut as well.

I think a question to consider here is whether or not he's reliably loose and passive enough that we can check-fold both the turn and river. It seems like a lot to ask for, but StellarWind did call him "very loose/passive."

[Oink]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd bet this one and I'd valuebet any 2, 4, 5 and J for sure. Maybe even vb any river - dunno about that.

Cant call a raise obviously.

If I somehow thought he might fold a gutshot on the turn and fire river with any2 if turn cks through I would valuecheck.

The loose passives in my games dont fold gutters tho

[/ QUOTE ]

Foreget about this. I thought you had position.

Cant see how this is anything but a b/f b/f

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
Cant see how this is anything but a b/f b/f

[/ QUOTE ]

Even though I doubt we're a favorite to have an equity advantage on the turn, I think a turn bet-fold is fine. (I like PJ's plan, really.) Putting in one bet at about 50/50 or even as a possible slight dog is no big deal -- especially if we're pretty much never getting bluff-raised and our turn bet discourages Villain from betting one of the big streets with a hand worse than ours.

However, a river bet-fold seems to me to have its reckless side, unless Villain isn't really "very loose/passive" (or my idea of "very loose/passive" is too exaggerated). I'm having trouble imagining the bet is for value once we're not getting called by flush draws and gutters anymore, and check-folding instead seems like a serious alternative to me.

Edit: If somehow we weren't allowed to check-fold the river and could only bet-fold, bet-call, or check-call, then, sure, bet-folding would seem best. But I don't see why we should rule out check-folding if we think we can trust our opponent's river bet if it comes.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
I think a question to consider here is whether or not he's reliably loose and passive enough that we can check-fold both the turn and river. It seems like a lot to ask for, but StellarWind did call him "very loose/passive."

[/ QUOTE ]
The ten gives a free card roughly never and the ace not very often. When the turn checks through it's obvious to value bet the river.

That's the way it actually happened and he paid off. I don't know what he had.

I'm not very happy with my decision to check the turn. The ace on board should protect me from a bluff raise.

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think a question to consider here is whether or not he's reliably loose and passive enough that we can check-fold both the turn and river. It seems like a lot to ask for, but StellarWind did call him "very loose/passive."

[/ QUOTE ]
The ten gives a free card roughly never and the ace not very often. When the turn checks through it's obvious to value bet the river.

That's the way it actually happened and he paid off. I don't know what he had.

I'm not very happy with my decision to check the turn. The ace on board should protect me from a bluff raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a turn check-through nearly rules out Ax, then it seems to me that there is one big advantage to playing the hand the way you did, which is that you can value bet the river with confidence instead of betting into God knows what on the turn. (Or would merely getting called on the turn also be a strong enough indication that we have a river bet, giving us two potential streets of value?)

Of course, a good chunk of the worse hands that would've called the turn will fold the river, but at least you still get value from 3x and 66 and maybe even a curious KQ/KJ/KXs.

Nevertheless, I must have an exaggerated notion of "very loose/passive" in mind, because I wasn't aware that we were worried about a turn bluff-raise very much at all. And if the turn bluff-raise is a concern, then a plain old turn bluff (or "value" bet from a worse hand) after we check must really be.

[yourface]

I think we can all agree that the best turn line is b/f

if we get called on the turn it leads to a more interesting river decision. the PPs that we can get value from are outweighed by the ton of Ax combinations that a LP can have, plus he will sometimes be slowplaying a monster like trip Ts.

messing around with stove I think we have around 30% equity (edit)when villain calls or raises our bet on a brick river . also I don't expect villain to value bet any of the hands we beat after we check to him. I do think that he'll probably VB every hand that beats up unless he can show up with KK

the pot size will be ~7BB, so if villain is bluffing more than 1/8 of the time (7 times we lose 1BB, 1 time we win 7BB = breakeven) we should be calling. 1/8 is 12.5% of the time.

so if we expect villain to bluff less than 12.5% of the time we should c/f. if we expect him to bluff between 12.5% and 30% of the time we should b/f because we lose less on that river bet. if we expect him to buff more than 30% of the time we should c/c.

does that look right?

[vmacosta]

yourface,
based on your assumptions he can never bluff more than 30% of the time because only 30% of his range needs to bluff.

So on the surface it seems like you should never c/c the river. However, you have him always calling a bet with missed b'way and i dunno if that's realistic.