Tournament Hand

[akashenk 12]

akashenk's position seems to be this:A check-raise will accomplish the following:1. Get bad hands to fold.2. Get marginal hands to call and check it down to the river.3. Get better hands to shove and then you can fold.And then the argument against that seems to be:1. That's not the best result.2. There's no reason to assume it will simply be checked down.3. Those same hands will bet the turn anyway, so check-call, check-fold gets the same result and saves money.Is that about it?

I guess, but I think your arguments against are fairly weak.1) It's not the best result, but its an ok result with such mediocre holdings.2) There's plenty of reason it will be checked on the turn, since we have eliminated monster hands and bluffs to a great degree. People don't typically double barrel marginal hands when they don't think their opponent will fold.3) if you are prepared to auto-fold to a bet on the turn in this situation, then you shouldn't be putting in the 4K call, since your hand is highly unlikely to improve on the turn. This is why c/f is probably a better play long term than c/c on the flop.

[akashenk 12]

But turning top pair into a bluff is a horrendous play. How you have yet to realize that is just absurd and almost to the extent of ignorance.So as I said, our hand is equivalent here to 72o or any other random hand which is such a major leak.You're really just setting money on fire

i love how you guys act like we have the nuts here. Oh my god, don't turn my top pair crap kicker into a bluff!!! The Horror, the horror!this is your typical argument...Doing xyz is a horrible play. Don't you realize how horrible it is? Its absurd you don't realize it.TrueAce, I hope your not a lawyer, or a lobyist, or a salesperson, or pretty much anyone whos job it is to argue a position.BTW, I already explained how our hand is not like 72o. Please, make another post where you claim our hand is like 72o, I look forward to repeating myself.

[akashenk 12]

Reasons to bet/raise in poker:1) To get value2) As a bluff3) TO PUT THE OPPONENT ON NOTICE THAT WE HAVE A HAND/informationVery enlightening!

I'm not sure how the bolded part of #3 is different from #2, but ok.

[TrueAce13 18]

i love how you guys act like we have the nuts here. Oh my god, don't turn my top pair crap kicker into a bluff!!! The Horror, the horror!this is your typical argument...Doing xyz is a horrible play. Don't you realize how horrible it is? Its absurd you don't realize it.TrueAce, I hope your not a lawyer, or a lobyist, or a salesperson, or pretty much anyone whos job it is to argue a position.BTW, I already explained how our hand is not like 72o. Please, make another post where you claim our hand is like 72o, I look forward to repeating myself.

you're a ****ing idiot.

[TrueAce13 18]

Lol at you saying what you did in that quote. I give sooooooooo many valid reasons on why your play completely sucks, but your a ****ing ignorant troll who doesn't open their mind to the correct play.

[akashenk 12]

Lol at you saying what you did in that quote. I give sooooooooo many valid reasons on why your play completely sucks, but your a ****ing ignorant troll who doesn't open their mind to the correct play.

saying that a play sucks, I mean it really sucks, I mean I can't believe how much it sucks is not a valid reason.Check your dictionary.And notice how I never claim that the play you favor sucks. I only say that another player has benefits which make it preferred IMO. Which one of us is not open minded?

[akashenk 12]

ps a

trueace,I think you may be devolving before our eyes. We may soon need a eclipsazoologist to help us translate the varoius clicks, clacks and grunts that you use for communication.

[Tehtoe 3]

I'm not sure how the bolded part of #3 is different from #2, but ok.

The point of the raise is not to get value nor is it primarily to get the opponent to fold there (although in some cases they will fold a slightly better hand or a draw, which is a very good result). The point is to put the opponent on notice that we like our hand and its going to be diffuclt to bluff us out of the pot.

lol.

[donk4life 34]

ALRIGHT WHO IS IT. I SWEAR TO GOD LURBZ IF IT'S YOU I'LL STRAIGHT UP MURDER YOUR ASS.

[TrueAce13 18]

I've been calling lurbz for a while bro! One timeeeeeeeeee

[irishguy 14]

I disagree with you that if he calls the c/r, he likes his hand, unless what you mean is he likes his hand enough to call, but not enough to stake his tournament life on it.This is the subtle difference you are missing. I think a call of our check raise rules out the the chance that he has a true monster (2p or better) and this means that, barring him hitting a draw on the turn, we are likely to get to the river without another bet.Think of it this way... you have some draw... your opponent has shown some strength and appears to have committed himself to the pot. Are you really going to stake your tournament life by betting the turn big and hoping your opponent goes away or catching your draw with one card to come. I don't think so. You are much more likely to take the free card when the opportunity is presented.And so, I think it is safe to assume our opponent would not bet the turn on a draw in this situation.As far as check-folding the flop is concerned, I'm a bit conflicted. Again, there really isn't anything that can hit the turn that is all of a sudden going to make us think we are definitely good, and check calling is going to make a very hard decision for us in the face of a turn bet from the opponent. So, what is the value in throwing that 4K in to call the flop, even if we think we are ahead here. I think if our plan is to lead out the turn in the hope of stealing the pot, then perhaps check-call is better than check-fold, but I think we have been going on the assumption that we would check the turn here in most situations.

It's such a random assumption to think if he calls a min cr he's not putting another dollar in the pot. When we min raise the flop and check the turn we scream weakness and if he were to check back and we check again on the river you don't think we're getting value/or miss draws are betting the river like 100 percent of the time. Bet folding the flop/check calling the flop are really the only two options that should logically be discussed here.

[akashenk 12]

It's such a random assumption to think if he calls a min cr he's not putting another dollar in the pot. When we min raise the flop and check the turn we scream weakness and if he were to check back and we check again on the river you don't think we're getting value/or miss draws are betting the river like 100 percent of the time.Bet folding the flop/check calling the flop are really the only two options that should logically be discussed here.

We haven't really discussed the river at all in this thread. In my mind, a check on the river may bring the bluff back into play. If one is afraid of that, a defensive bet could work, but IMO, its just so unlikely we are ahead, that a check/fold is probably the way to go. The goal of the flop play was to get to the river as cheaply as possible, and since it is highly unlikely the opponent will bet unless he caught the river, we can simply check down and see how good our top pair crap kicker is. Of course, we were hoping to improve by the river. In this case it wouldn't have happened, but I think it gave us the best chance of winning the hand.I continue to not see why you and others (though you more tactfully) think it is such a random assumption that our opponent will not bet the turn. The assumption is based on the idea that, if they were really strong on the flop, they would shove in response to our c/r. With flush and straight draws out there, I think only a fool would check behind with hands like AK, 2p, sets, etc. Its perfectly reasonable to believe the would have shoved, so if they don't then we can assume they are either drawing or have a marginal hand. Now comes the turn. If they are drawing and miss, they aren't going to bet here. It doesn't make sense, since they get a free card. If they are marginal they aren't going to be either. Any money they put in the pot pretty much commits them since they have no reason to believe we are going anwhere. So if we eliminated the lilkelihood that they flopped super strong with our c/r then I think we can say that, if they bet the turn, it means they caught something good and we will fold. Otherwise, and the most likely situation is, they will check the turn, which they may also do if they caught something good. This is all very logical. If you don't think it is, I challenge you to object to any of the reason here. And please don't give me the.. "they COULD do something else" argument. Of course they COULD do something else. They could be a maniac. They could fold in response to our turn check. The point here is to discuss what they are likely to do and why.Exlplain to me why we should ASSUME they will flat the flop with a big hand... in other words why that is more likely than the alternative. Explain to me why we should ASSUME they will commit most of their chips to the pot on the turn with a missed draw or a marginal hand when they have been given a free card. These are the things you have to convince yourself of to believe that the c/r didn't serve its purpose perfectly.And if you repeat the often stated belief that a c/c gives us the same info as the c/r, I wil once again ask.... if we c/c, what does a bet from them on the turn really tell us. They could be betting for value with a monster or a semi-strong hand that happens to have us beat. They could be bluffing. They could be semi-bluffing. All of these options become viable since we showed weakness both on the flop and now the turn. The original poster said it himself and the whole point of this thread is.. what do you do on the turn? I think the consensus is fold, but it s a pretty hard decision, and we can easily be wrong. And by the way, we can easily make a mistake (which was what happend). And we never get an opportunity to catch that river flush unless we do make that mistake. All of this could have been avoided for an extra 4K, and I think that is well worth it.Lastly, when you say if we c/r the flop and then check the turn, we scream weakness. This makes a little sense, which is why I discussed the thought of leading the turn in an earlier post. However, i think this is minimized by the fact that we have shown we are committed to the pot. This makes marginal hands and draws less unlikely to bet even in the face of some weakness. After all, our c/r could be the sign that we have a monster and a check on the turn could be us trying to milk more out of them.

[answer20 5]

To make such an impassioned argument and then to thrown out there that we should even consider check-folding this Flop really knocks down some of your 'credit' with quite a few folks I think. Are we supposed to thrown away AT suited because if we dont hit 2-pair or a draw then it's no good? Might as well muck it in pre-Flop and save all those chips for a better spot ... really!!I think one of the ideas that you are ignoring is that we are advocating that the size of the Turn bet (provided there is one) is giving us the same information that you are looking for with your check-raise AND NOW we have gained the knowledge of the Turn card without spending any extra chips. Most are giving the opponent tons of credit here if they are able to fire a 12K bet on the Turn with marginal hands. But our opponent doesn't have a marginal hand and is smart enough to know how to price us out of any draw we might have ... but is also more than willing to 'flip' (way ahead) for his stack now. I tend to agree that a check-raise could slow down an opponent, but if you are advocating a check-raise and following that up with a check on the Turn, then I would think most opponents would sense this as weak and pounce ... even with marginal hands ... and our 4k is lost. Why would you show aggression and then immediately let your opponent take the lead again? We have a marginal hand OOP, no harm in playing it that way until our opponent tells us to go away or we improve. What if we saw a 4-6k bet on the Turn? Now we are able to see the River for 'your' 8k price with the ability to fold on the River unless we improve. No one has really mentioned this aspect of the call on the Flop as of yet as we have all been focusing on the actual hand as played. It is so hard for some to try to discuss these hands when we know the results. Is a 6-8k Turn bet something we can 'accept' with our newly provided draw?I think another way that I am looking at this now is that I really am more intested in gaining inforamtion from the board as cheap as I can right now, being short-stacked, than pressing my opponent. My opponent will provide plenty of information after I get to see the Turn card for 4k.

[TrueAce13 18]

Yay!!

[irishguy 14]

We haven't really discussed the river at all in this thread. In my mind, a check on the river may bring the bluff back into play. If one is afraid of that, a defensive bet could work, but IMO, its just so unlikely we are ahead, that a check/fold is probably the way to go. The goal of the flop play was to get to the river as cheaply as possible, and since it is highly unlikely the opponent will bet unless he caught the river, we can simply check down and see how good our top pair crap kicker is. Of course, we were hoping to improve by the river. In this case it wouldn't have happened, but I think it gave us the best chance of winning the hand.I continue to not see why you and others (though you more tactfully) think it is such a random assumption that our opponent will not bet the turn. The assumption is based on the idea that, if they were really strong on the flop, they would shove in response to our c/r. With flush and straight draws out there, I think only a fool would check behind with hands like AK, 2p, sets, etc. Its perfectly reasonable to believe the would have shoved, so if they don't then we can assume they are either drawing or have a marginal hand. Now comes the turn. If they are drawing and miss, they aren't going to bet here. It doesn't make sense, since they get a free card. If they are marginal they aren't going to be either. Any money they put in the pot pretty much commits them since they have no reason to believe we are going anwhere. So if we eliminated the lilkelihood that they flopped super strong with our c/r then I think we can say that, if they bet the turn, it means they caught something good and we will fold. Otherwise, and the most likely situation is, they will check the turn, which they may also do if they caught something good. This is all very logical. If you don't think it is, I challenge you to object to any of the reason here. And please don't give me the.. "they COULD do something else" argument. Of course they COULD do something else. They could be a maniac. They could fold in response to our turn check. The point here is to discuss what they are likely to do and why.Exlplain to me why we should ASSUME they will flat the flop with a big hand... in other words why that is more likely than the alternative. Explain to me why we should ASSUME they will commit most of their chips to the pot on the turn with a missed draw or a marginal hand when they have been given a free card. These are the things you have to convince yourself of to believe that the c/r didn't serve its purpose perfectly.And if you repeat the often stated belief that a c/c gives us the same info as the c/r, I wil once again ask.... if we c/c, what does a bet from them on the turn really tell us. They could be betting for value with a monster or a semi-strong hand that happens to have us beat. They could be bluffing. They could be semi-bluffing. All of these options become viable since we showed weakness both on the flop and now the turn. The original poster said it himself and the whole point of this thread is.. what do you do on the turn? I think the consensus is fold, but it s a pretty hard decision, and we can easily be wrong. And by the way, we can easily make a mistake (which was what happend). And we never get an opportunity to catch that river flush unless we do make that mistake. All of this could have been avoided for an extra 4K, and I think that is well worth it.Lastly, when you say if we c/r the flop and then check the turn, we scream weakness. This makes a little sense, which is why I discussed the thought of leading the turn in an earlier post. However, i think this is minimized by the fact that we have shown we are committed to the pot. This makes marginal hands and draws less unlikely to bet even in the face of some weakness. After all, our c/r could be the sign that we have a monster and a check on the turn could be us trying to milk more out of them.

I can't think of a single person that would call a cr on the flop and not put more money in the pot when we've shown weakness on the turn. Draws that call the flop if unimproved are going to semi bluff that turn. Which again really means we've gained no further information then cc flop c turn we've just put more money in the pot. I don't see many people fearing the old double check raise on the turn-if we cr flop check turn I think it does much more to polarize our hand then to give us information on their hand. The only merit like ever in cr this flop is leading the turn especially when a perfect semi bluff card hits the turn. Check raising the flop is beyond awful to me-personally I'd rather bet fold the flop/check fold turn cus I think cc cf is a bit passive considering position/stacks etc if we lead flop/get raised-pretty basic fold if we lead flop get called I think we can shut it down bc at this state I think it's unlikely we're getting floated.!"

[answer20 5]

Fair point that checking the Turn could put you in position for another check-raise, but with stacks this short if our opponent puts any chips in the pot on the Turn after calling a c/r, then it really would take a 'special' player to fold at that point in time if we came over the top. So I would have to believe that the chips are going in regardless at that point (probably in our opponents favor). You are banking on this action (or threat thereof) will get you to the River for 4k ... I think this only happens when our opponent doesn't have a hand and we are all advocating that we will hear from our opponent on the Turn if he has a hand and are 'conceeding' that his bet size will tell us the strength of his hand ... We can do this all for 4k less chips. Yes, it may be a weaker play, but probably more prudent at this stage of the tournament with these stack sizes.You are correct that a c/r slows down our opponents bluffing opportunities and could get us to the River for 'maybe' a show-down. But now that I have seen/heard that a 14bb stack is acceptable to leave this hand with, I am more inclined to call a 4-6k bet after I've seen a Turn card (for 4k) that helps me than to pay 4k to narrow my opponents range.Lets turn our attention to another thread from the cash game section ... I am interested in your thoughts on the 'few hands' post that showed up this week.

[akashenk 12]

I can't think of a single person that would call a cr on the flop and not put more money in the pot when we've shown weakness on the turn. Draws that call the flop if unimproved are going to semi bluff that turn. Which again really means we've gained no further information then cc flop c turn we've just put more money in the pot. I don't see many people fearing the old double check raise on the turn-if we cr flop check turn I think it does much more to polarize our hand then to give us information on their hand. The only merit like ever in cr this flop is leading the turn especially when a perfect semi bluff card hits the turn.Check raising the flop is beyond awful to me-personally I'd rather bet fold the flop/check fold turn cus I think cc cf is a bit passive considering position/stacks etc if we lead flop/get raised-pretty basic fold if we lead flop get called I think we can shut it down bc at this state I think it's unlikely we're getting floated.!"

I guess we'll have to disagree about putting more money into the pot on semi-bluff or marginal hand. This isn't some random part of the tournament where you're deep-stacked and can make all sorts of plays. This is getting down to the wire where you're pretty short-stacked and can quickly commit yourself to a pot in a bad spot. Any bet our oopponent makes on the turn in this pot pretty much will commit him to the pot. He knows that (hopefully) and so do you.As far as bet/folding the flop instead of checking, this has merit and has been briefly discussed in this thread. I think the majority of the discussion has centered around what to do if you check the flop.

[akashenk 12]

Fair point that checking the Turn could put you in position for a another check-raise, but with stacks this short if our opponent puts any chips in the pot on the Turn after calling a c/r, then it really would take a 'special' player to fold at that point in time if we came over the top. So I would have to believe that the chips are going in regardless at that point (probably in our opponents favor). You are banking on this action (or threat thereof) will get you to the River for 4k ... I think this only happens when our opponent doesn't have a hand and we are all advocating that we will here from our opponent on the Turn if he has a hand and are 'conceeding' that his bet size will tell us the strength of his hand ... We can do this all for 4k less chips. Yes, it may be a weaker play, but probably more prudent at this stage of the tournament with these stack sizes.You are correct that a c/r slows down our opponents bluffing opportunities and could get us to the River for 'maybe' a show-down. But now that I have seen/heard that a 14bb stack is acceptable to leave this hand with, I am more inclined to call a 4-6k bet after I've seen a Turn card (for 4k) that helps me than to pay 4k to narrow my opponents range.Lets turn our attention to another thread from the cash game section ... I am interested in your thoughts on the 'few hands' post that showed up this week.

I'll take a look at the other thread, and maybe we're beating a dead horse here, but...Like I said, the only situation I see our opponent putting chips in on the turn is if he caught something really good there (2p minimum), and if he caught a straight or a flush, he may even slow play it. I really feel we get to see the river with no bet on the turn a vast majority of the time. Now, maybe if our opponent were kind enough to size a turn bet at 4K, then c/c the flop and c/c the turn would amount to the same risk/reward compared to our c/r the flop. However, 4K into that pot would be a pretty small bet. Its more likely they would bet more, perhaps much more (they actually bet 12K I believe), and that puts us in the tough spot I'm looking to avoid.

[akashenk 12]

To make such an impassioned argument and then to thrown out there that we should even consider check-folding this Flop really knocks down some of your 'credit' with quite a few folks I think. Are we supposed to thrown away AT suited because if we dont hit 2-pair or a draw then it's no good? Might as well muck it in pre-Flop and save all those chips for a better spot ... really!!I think one of the ideas that you are ignoring is that we are advocating that the size of the Turn bet (provided there is one) is giving us the same information that you are looking for with your check-raise AND NOW we have gained the knowledge of the Turn card without spending any extra chips. Most are giving the opponent tons of credit here if they are able to fire a 12K bet on the Turn with marginal hands. But our opponent doesn't have a marginal hand and is smart enough to know how to price us out of any draw we might have ... but is also more than willing to 'flip' (way ahead) for his stack now.I tend to agree that a check-raise could slow down an opponent, but if you are advocating a check-raise and following that up with a check on the Turn, then I would think most opponents would sense this as weak and pounce ... even with marginal hands ... and our 4k is lost. Why would you show aggression and then immediately let your opponent take the lead again? We have a marginal hand OOP, no harm in playing it that way until our opponent tells us to go away or we improve.What if we saw a 4-6k bet on the Turn? Now we are able to see the River for 'your' 8k price with the ability to fold on the River unless we improve. No one has really mentioned this aspect of the call on the Flop as of yet as we have all been focusing on the actual hand as played. It is so hard for some to try to discuss these hands when we know the results. Is a 6-8k Turn bet something we can 'accept' with our newly provided draw?I think another way that I am looking at this now is that I really am more intested in gaining inforamtion from the board as cheap as I can right now, being short-stacked, than pressing my opponent. My opponent will provide plenty of information after I get to see the Turn card for 4k.

Sorry I completely missed your post and never replied. Anyhow, allow me to address some of your points. Let's consider c/f on the flop. There's two questions to ask1) What are the chances we will improve on the turn2) Do we intend to c/f the turn to a standard betI think the answer to question #1 is we have very little chance, if any of improving. We don't really like our kicker, so an A doesn't necessarily make us jump for joy. And while a 10 will give us two pair, it also completes a straight and one of the 10s completes the flush. Frankly there's no card that can hit this turn where all fo a sudden I think I have this guy's number. Our chance to imporve really requires getting to the river.And, looking at what everyone here has said, we plan on c/f the turn to any standard bet, given that we now have the infomation we need (that apparently we didn't need a c/r flop to tell us).So, if we have little hope of improving, and we fully intend to continue to play the hand weak by c/f the turn, then I think it is a legitimate question to ask why on earth are we putting the 4K in by c/c the flop. The only logical reason is we hope our opponent doesn't bet the turn. I have made arguments for why this is a likelihood had we c/r the flop, but in this case we have shown weakness on two streets and I think it is highly likely our opponent will value bet a weaker hand here than he would in my c/r scenario, or even bluff/semi-bluff. He's just continuing to play and control the hand. So, again, why are we even calling the flop in this case? Its not fun to just fold when you flopped top pair, but I think just putting in 4K for absolutely no reason doesn't make any sense. Oh, I forgot, somehow donk's "let's see what happens" reason is all some players need.As far as your (and others') point about information and bet-sizing. I think I just have to disagree here. The whole point of this thread was that the original poster made a mistake. Now, maybe its a mistake some others like donk and trueace wouldn't have made. Maybe they just "knew" that the opponent's bet signalled that we were beat and that made it an easy fold. I don't see it that clearly. By playing weakly on the flop, we are basically inviting the opponent to continue his narrative on the turn. Now, I'm not going to sit here and say that it opens the floodgate to a wide vareity of bluffs, because this is a straightforward player. However, it does open the door for him to value bet some fairly marginal hands that may or may not have us beat, including semi-bluffs. In our actions to this point we've shown no strength and we've shown no interest in getting too involve in this pot. Now, unlike some others, I don't necessarily think this alternate line to my ideal play is horrible. We just fold and move on. However, if our intention is to try and win the hand, or at least make a play which has a better chance of winning the hand, I think we need to try and get to the river as cheaply as possible. I think our extra 4K on the flop shuts down most of the action on the turn and gets us there. Trueace, in some of his more coherant posts, seems to love the fact the we flopped top pair six handed and is aghast at the thought of turning top pair into a bluff.. Wouldn't it be nice to get to a showdown and see if we're good? I think by playing so weak, we virtually guarantee we aren't going to get to a showdown unless we're all in. And that's not likely going to end well for us.As for our turn check after c/r showing weakness, I already replied earlier, but I'll repeat it here. Yes it does show some weakness, but our opponent may just think we are being tricky with a monster and be less likely to try and find out. And even if they didn't think that, I believe the fact that we put in a third of our stack into the pot signals that we are not necessarily going away. I really think the c/r shuts down the turn action, unless they happen to catch a really good card for them (like a second pair).

[irishguy 14]

You are jumping to assumptions that just don't make sense. You assume if we c c then check villain is double barreling everything-but that same villain would call a c r then upon our showing weakness would just check it down that's just so illogical its baffling. Everyone else's assumption is that villains not double barreling half a stack and committing to the pot at this stage of the tournament with air or a draw...By your logic we min c r the flop and we learn villain likes his hand enough to continue but not enough to put his stack in-costing us an additional 4k to come to this.Everyone else is saying by c c and c f villain is essentially commiting his stack to the hand thus giving us the same 'info' if villian had overshoved in your scenario but for 4k less. If your contention is that with your c r we get to showdown for that extra 4k then we need to be 1) continuing our story by betting the turn and pricing out draws 2) continuing our story by betting the turn and getting the few hands that beat us like Aj aq to foldAs for c f flop this should be blatantly obvious how and why this is beyond brutal-we raise pre flop most ace better kicker hands/over pairs are 3 betting us-so what's his calling range? Some aces, pairs, connectors, broadway cards etc the argument here is our check is getting a bet out of a shit ton of hands on this flop-you say we cr which only gets us shoved on by big aces, two pairs, sets, huge draws-called by some draws (which we price in) and some aces that beat us. Villian double barreling narrows the hell out of their range-our call has shown strength-we raise pre flop check ace high flop-call shows we like our hand-which is much more likely to have an ace than a draw-we check turn again which would indicate we've likely either got an ace we've turned into a bluff catcher or a marginal ace we aren't happy about. Most villains aren't going to assume they can bluff you off an ace so he's not very likely to be commiting his stack on the turn with air or a draw...

[akashenk 12]

You are jumping to assumptions that just don't make sense. You assume if we c c then check villain is double barreling everything-but that same villain would call a c r then upon our showing weakness would just check it down that's just so illogical its baffling. Everyone else's assumption is that villains not double barreling half a stack and committing to the pot at this stage of the tournament with air or a draw...By your logic we min c r the flop and we learn villain likes his hand enough to continue but not enough to put his stack in-costing us an additional 4k to come to this.Everyone else is saying by c c and c f villain is essentially commiting his stack to the hand thus giving us the same 'info' if villian had overshoved in your scenario but for 4k less.If your contention is that with your c r we get to showdown for that extra 4k then we need to be 1) continuing our story by betting the turn and pricing out draws 2) continuing our story by betting the turn and getting the few hands that beat us like Aj aq to foldAs for c f flop this should be blatantly obvious how and why this is beyond brutal-we raise pre flop most ace better kicker hands/over pairs are 3 betting us-so what's his calling range?Some aces, pairs, connectors, broadway cards etc the argument here is our check is getting a bet out of a shit ton of hands on this flop-you say we cr which only gets us shoved on by big aces, two pairs, sets, huge draws-called by some draws (which we price in) and some aces that beat us.Villian double barreling narrows the hell out of their range-our call has shown strength-we raise pre flop check ace high flop-call shows we like our hand-which is much more likely to have an ace than a draw-we check turn again which would indicate we've likely either got an ace we've turned into a bluff catcher or a marginal ace we aren't happy about. Most villains aren't going to assume they can bluff you off an ace so he's not very likely to be commiting his stack on the turn with air or a draw...

I think we've probably covererd this territory enough. I guess it comes down to the fact that you believe our villain will not take advantage of his position and us not showing interest in winning this hand. I happen to think they can and will a large percentage of the time. He has position. If we c/c and check the flop, he has every tool at his disposal and has no reason to fear using any of them. My belief is the extra 4K we invest on the flop increases our odds (from 0%) of winning the hand right there. It increases our odds of getting a ck/ck on the turn by decreasing the odds of the opponend value betting marginal hands or bluffing/semi-bluffing (we have decreased our own chance of folding, after all). And. perhaps more importalntly for those of us (apparently none on this board), who are capable of making mistakes in situations which call for difficult decision.. it decreaases the likelihood we will make such a mistake. All of this, in my mind, is worth that extra 4K.The part that I think is particualrly interesting about y'alls view of this hand is the notion that bet-sizing on the turn somehow reveals the opponent's hand to us. He ended up betting the pot. Apperently this means we should fold. But what if he had made a standard value bet... 6K? What then? We still don't have odds to call. Are we auto folding? What if he had gone all-in? It seems to me that any one of these bets would make sense for someone holding what he had. It seems to me that people could make all sorts of justifications for calling any one of these bets and they would be dead wrong in all three cases. If reading a "bet-size" tell means, the opponent looks funny at the pot, and this will cause us to fold, then I guess we come back to what has become the secondary argument in this thread... what is the purpose of putting in even 4K on the flop. You guys seem to think its outlandish that I suggest we put in and extra 4K into the pot for whatever reasons I think make sense. You don't think they make sense? Fine, I guess we're at point where we'll have to agree to disagree. But how do you explain the sense of putting in the original 4K when you have made it clear you intend to fold the turn no matter what? Does "let's see what happens" justify putting money into a pot when we already know what will happen?

[irishguy 14]

How is min raising an extra 4k to see what happens-different/more valueable then our c c 4k 'see what happens'. You assume that villain in our scenario will double barrel anything he bets the flop with yet you assume the same villain wouldn't put anymore money in the pot after flatting a c r...even if he were to check behind on the turn do you not think when we check the river he bets like 99.9999% of the time? You say c r increases our chance of winning the hand and gets us to showdown for only 4k more so then why aren't you advocating c r for more? Its not about calling the flop and folding the turn no matter what-we call the flop and have more information on the turn..maybe he tanks longer to act-maybe he bets less where we think shoving as a semi bluff becomes an option-however he bets an amount that commits him to the hand and prices us out-could he be bluffing? Sure but it's sure as hell not likely

[akashenk 12]

How is min raising an extra 4k to see what happens-different/more valueable then our c c 4k 'see what happens'. You assume that villain in our scenario will double barrel anything he bets the flop with yet you assume the same villain wouldn't put anymore money in the pot after flatting a c r...even if he were to check behind on the turn do you not think when we check the river he bets like 99.9999% of the time?You say c r increases our chance of winning the hand and gets us to showdown for only 4k more so then why aren't you advocating c r for more?Its not about calling the flop and folding the turn no matter what-we call the flop and have more information on the turn..maybe he tanks longer to act-maybe he bets less where we think shoving as a semi bluff becomes an option-however he bets an amount that commits him to the hand and prices us out-could he be bluffing? Sure but it's sure as hell not likely

c/r is different because I look like I am committing myself to the pot. If our opponent has any idea what he is doing, this will affect his decision making process going forward to my advantage. Its simply not the same landscape on the turn having followed a c/r vs having followed a c/c. As for the river, you bring this up again and I have already addressed it. I think in general, whoever has the best hand in this situation by the river "might" bet, but only if they are fairly strong. Most likely the river will be checked down. Is that not what we want with top pair mediocre kicker?as for c/r for more, I think the only reason to do so would be if we felt like it would increase our fold equity. The only hands that have us beat that "might" fold do a c/r here are Aj/AQ and I'm not sure raising more would necessarily make it more likely for them to fold. If they think they're good they will call any raise. If they're not sure, they will fold to most raises for the same reason our c/c to c/f is a bit dubious. There realy isn't much of a chance they will improve on the turn. They do, however have posiiton, which might overcome this limitation. Anyhow, I think the c/ min-raise is the most conservative method of achieving what I'm looking for. Put it this way, let's assume we c/c, intent on c/c the turn to any reasonable bet. We would have to call at least 5 or 6K on the turn here to see the river. I think the extra 4K we put in on the flop means we won't have to make this call and it would save us a few K.As for your final comments, I appreciate your effort to show that somehow our decision on the turn could be made logically. Maybe you would end up making a good decison based on "what happens". I find it interesting to see that you postulate a situation where our "analysis" might lead us to shove on a semi-bluff. That would obviously be a huge mistake in this situation that would likely never have occurred had we c/r the flop. I also find it interesting you once again return to bet sizing. Any bet under 2-3 K is essentially a check here, and ignoring this possiblity for the moment (though apparently it could lead to that bad decision semi-bluff you described), I again ask, what do different bet sizes mean here? What's the difference between all-in, 12K or 6K. How will you act differently in the face of these different bet sizes. You and others have told me repeatedly that you could read the opponent's bet size and determine the proper action. Well then, read away. Tell me what you would do.I think the reality is, if the opponent throws any reasonable bet into the pot, then we will fold. So, then bet-sizing is irrelevant. All that matters is bet or no bet. and this is the crux of the matter. I feel my strategy increase the likelyhood of us getting a no bet based on the logic I have explained countless times. We reduce the likelihood they will bluff. We reduce the likelihood they will put out an infomration bet with a marginal hand that has us beat. We reduce the likelihood they wil bet on a draw. We reduce the likelihood that they have a monster and will bet for value. All of this helps us make a better decision on the turn and makes it more likely we get to see a river card, and all for the price of 4K. I continue to suggest that this 4K is a reasonable amount to pay to increas our odds of winning this hand. You can think of it another way. By taking away a number of plays our opponent has at his disposal, we eliminate his poitional advantage at least till the river. Again, I think 4K is a small price to pay for this.

[irishguy 14]

Raising more as a c r for one would price out draws-instead of min raising and giving the correct odds for villain to call..and by your logic would increase fold equity-if this line increases our win % and showdown % then we should want to get more money in the middle. Stating you feel like 'the person with the best hand may bet a river' so what cards do you bet on the river? What do you do when the river pairs the board with a d? And your raised? Your taking the results and including them when in matters and leaving them out when it suits you.. Bet sizing means a lot- for one if villain bets 6k on the turn we are now getting the right price with our hand-to me his 12k and an all in are essentially the same thing. Our line: villain is unlikely to be double barreling air/a worse ace or a draw we walk away down 6600 by folding the turn as played..if he's bluffing oh well-it was pretty suicidal on his part but we've done very little damage to our stack...on to the next hand.Your line: he over shoves and we are out 10600..I don't see us ever getting to show down without facing more bets and if we do I don't see us winning at showdown a whole lot. And if we do win at show down its a pretty big showing of us losing value in playing a hand this way..

[TrueAce13 18]

Irish, there is no use arguing w this dude. He is content playing the hand poorly.