HU NLTRN - QQ first hand

[OneTwoThreeROBOT]

Unknown villain, first hand, NL TRN $30 HU

1500 stacks, 10/20. QQ in the BB. He raises to 60, I reraise to 240. He calls.

Flop: A 6 5

I check, he checks

Turn: 9

I check, he checks.

River: K
I check

[APXG]

Your flop check is dangerous b.c. he checks an ace there too often for you to be able to play well the rest of the hand. I would expect him to bet the turn w/o an ace often as well when checked to twice, but never really often enough for you to continue profitably with a turn check-call. Thus, you must fold in a spot where he will likely bluff a lot and thereby take equity from you.

As played, after he checks the turn behind, river check makes sense, and I'd instafold to a bet given this guy didn't bet the turn. If he's gonna be bluffing anywhere, it will not be here after checking twice.

[Insane_Steve]

I like a bet of about 200-240 (1/2 pot) on the flop, fold to any raise (more of a feeler bet than a value bet). Were there any flush draws on the flop?

The check behind on the turn is kind of odd, a lot of players bet the turn with air or an ace here. I'm thinking you're either up against TT or 88 or some pocket pair that wants to see a cheap showdown, or an ace played sort of weak. Either way, fold to any sizable river bet.

[bluffbetter]

[ QUOTE ]
Your flop check is dangerous b.c. he checks an ace there too often for you to be able to play well the rest of the hand. I would expect him to bet the turn w/o an ace often as well when checked to twice, but never really often enough for you to continue profitably with a turn check-call. Thus, you must fold in a spot where he will likely bluff a lot and thereby take equity from you.

As played, after he checks the turn behind, river check makes sense, and I'd instafold to a bet given this guy didn't bet the turn. If he's gonna be bluffing anywhere, it will not be here after checking twice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if this makes sense, if he is bluffing alot on the turn then surely a call is correct? If villain will check the river after bluffing then should be OK to call turn I think because if villain bets 1/2 pot turn with an ace or a bluff then it only needs to be a bluff 1 time in 3 to break even on the call.

[APXG]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your flop check is dangerous b.c. he checks an ace there too often for you to be able to play well the rest of the hand. I would expect him to bet the turn w/o an ace often as well when checked to twice, but never really often enough for you to continue profitably with a turn check-call. Thus, you must fold in a spot where he will likely bluff a lot and thereby take equity from you.

As played, after he checks the turn behind, river check makes sense, and I'd instafold to a bet given this guy didn't bet the turn. If he's gonna be bluffing anywhere, it will not be here after checking twice.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if this makes sense, if he is bluffing alot on the turn then surely a call is correct? If villain will check the river after bluffing then should be OK to call turn I think because if villain bets 1/2 pot turn with an ace or a bluff then it only needs to be a bluff 1 time in 3 to break even on the call.

[/ QUOTE ]

It may or may not be 1/3 of the time, but it is certainly nonzero. You have to know opponent very well to come up with accurate bluff to nonbluff ratio, and I assume such an opponent-specific read is not available here. Even if you do know the ratio and a call is deemed profitable, you do not have all-in protection, so you cannot assume that he will not bet the river. The higher the bluff to nonbluff ratio on this turn, the higher the turn-river 2barrel to check-behind ratio is for most opponents.

My point was not that the turn spot is necessarily -EV, but rather that it is less +EV(if at all) than betting the flop when the entire hand is considered. You are taking absolute EV (which I think is too tough to determine, for me at least), but I'm talking relative EV which is easier to determine since the EV of a flop lead does not allow for much trickiness and thus variance in its determination.