30/60 turn spot

[Garland]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I just saw this thread. I bet the turn, call the c/r, and river a flush.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is just awful. if you're gonna river a flush, 3bet the goddamn turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to edit/delete this out like someone else did earlier, but wrong [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

I'm sorry, I know you've etched the correct play in your head already by checking the turn. I'm not exactly sure what you're willing to bet on this turn, but if you're only willing to bet an 8 here, this is extremely exploitable.

These are one of these spots were I'm going to take a shot and try to win the pot without improvement. I'd much, much rather bet the turn and check the river unimproved than check the turn and call a river bet unimproved. You said your opponents never fold a pair? Ok, how about AJ? AQ? Maybe AK (forget he didn't 3-bet pre). How about any hand that has 6 outs against us when we're actually ahead (KQ, KJ, QJ)?

[ QUOTE ]
even spewmaster schneids said he only bets it 33-50% of the time

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Well, while I'm not sure, I believe he plays the majority of his games in high and nosebleed stakes, so maybe that's where he gets his 33-50%. Maybe those players have a different dynamic; I honestly don't know. If he played mid-stakes full time I'd have a hard time believing those numbers wouldn't be higher. Anyhow, it's clear that he at least bets it some of the time while you've pretty much closed the door on it at 0%.

And BTW, there's no requisite to bet the turn and bet the river again. This is an opponent/read situational type of thing. You are allowed to check behind on the river if you feel another bet won't lodge his cards to the muck often enough, however the real purpose of betting the turn is to get his cards into the muck earlier.

If and only if I had information that BB was a habitual check-raiser would I check this turn behind. The default play is to bet, and it isn't even close.

Garland

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not exactly sure what you're willing to bet on this turn, but if you're only willing to bet an 8 here, this is extremely exploitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain how.

For the record, I never said I'd only bet an 8 here.

[HOWMANY]

this is a live 30/60 game, being "exploitable" is not a big deal. i understand its a fun word to use the past few weeks and everyone is saying it but it doesnt matter how exploitable you are if nobody is exploiting you. also we would obviously be bet/call sets/two pair/pair+flush draw/straight here and i assume bet/fold overpairs so an 8 is just part of what we will definitely be betting.

*edit*
replying to garland obv. mashed reply to the wrong post.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
this is a live 30/60 game, being "exploitable" is not a big deal. i understand its a fun word to use the past few weeks and everyone is saying it but it doesnt matter how exploitable you are if nobody is exploiting you. also we would obviously be bet/call sets/two pair/pair+flush draw/straight here and i assume bet/fold overpairs so an 8 is just part of what we will definitely be betting.

*edit*
replying to garland obv. mashed reply to the wrong post.

[/ QUOTE ]

it's not exploitable. when you check, you are basically saying, "i don't like the turn card, so bet the river if you want, but i'm calling your ass."

[Garland]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not exactly sure what you're willing to bet on this turn, but if you're only willing to bet an 8 here, this is extremely exploitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain how.

For the record, I never said I'd only bet an 8 here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you said you'll bet more than an 8, the point is kind of moot, isn't it? Anyhow, if you're only betting an 8, you are going to be giving way too many free cards to your opponent for one.

Honestly, there are a lot of good posters in this thread (and one who was confused by the original post) who are saying betting the turn is correct. Maybe it's time to reconsider your position. Or maybe not. Up to you, really.

Garland

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not exactly sure what you're willing to bet on this turn, but if you're only willing to bet an 8 here, this is extremely exploitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain how.

For the record, I never said I'd only bet an 8 here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since you said you'll bet more than an 8, the point is kind of moot, isn't it? Anyhow, if you're only betting an 8, you are going to be giving way too many free cards to your opponent for one.

Honestly, there are a lot of good posters in this thread (and one who was confused by the original post) who are saying betting the turn is correct. Maybe it's time to reconsider your position. Or maybe not. Up to you, really.

Garland

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I guess me and JoeTall and worm33 and 33-50% of schneids will just have to be wrong.

[HOWMANY]

[ QUOTE ]

Honestly, there are a lot of good posters in this thread (and one who was confused by the original post) who are saying betting the turn is correct. Maybe it's time to reconsider your position. Or maybe not. Up to you, really.

[/ QUOTE ]

even though i think betting the turn is the right play this is a really bad argument. lots of good players told pbob to call the river c/r in the 33 backdoor flush hand he posted in high stakes and they were all just plain wrong.

whether to bet turn here depends on whether villain will fold 1 pair and tbh i think arguing over whether that will happen on an online message board is pretty retarded. i personally think hell fold a pair, so do you and a lot of others. pbob joe and some others disagree. unless we hunt down and sweat the villain from this hand we will never know what the truth is.

[Garland]

[ QUOTE ]
even though i think betting the turn is the right play this is a really bad argument. lots of good players told pbob to call the river c/r in the 33 backdoor flush hand he posted in high stakes and they were all just plain wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, obviously not just because a lot of good players said so, but because they had good reasoning to back up the play. Bob's initial claim that the default player won't fold any pair on the turn just doesn't hold water in my book.

Perhaps the adjective "exploitable" is incorrect, but you are giving a free card to your opponent by checking. I don't like doing that.

I didn't know about the 33 hand until you mentioned it, but I can't see calling the river as being "plain wrong", because a strong player will see the two folds and can cheaply exploit (I think I got it right this time) this situation in the future (missed one draw, but represent the other).

Garland

[Schneids]

The reason people don't (or rather, shouldn't) fold pairs on this board on the turn is because most PF raisers c-bet QJo and other similar no-showdown type hands on the turn and check their showdownable hands. A large number of poker players are aware of this fact, so when the board is as such and we've got a chance to take a free 12+ out draw, I think it's better to generally check because our fold equity is not too high and the pot is small so letting a free 4-6 out draw hit isn't too harmful.

Make the board a similar straightish type board, but with bigger cards, and we still have just some kind of ace high flush draw, and I think there's a better case to be made for betting (because then people begin to lay down bottom pair to turn bets because the board makes it more likely to have hit the PFRs hand range).

[Nate.]

Schneids--

Thanks for posting that. You're Schneids and I'm not, so take this with a grain of salt, but I've played in tons of live mid-limit games against tons of live mid-limit opponents, and I'm pretty sure that most of them fold some pairs in this spot. Even as a theoretical matter, it's not at all obvious to me that if two perfect computers were playing this hand, the BB wouldn't fold any pairs. (Not that you were quite implying this; I'm just saying that both practically and conceptually I think you get some folds.)

--Nate