nl 1/2

[Naismith 0]

Okay, give me some help with this hand:Three limpers are followed by a double-the-blind raise and one more caller. I'm on the button with AdKh.Now, in the 1-2 NL games on Hollywood, a double raise generally means some sort of suited connector or possibly a low pair. I had no read on this guy, so I typically go into default read mode. Anyhow, I bumped it up to 12 figuring I could get this guy heads up, which I did.The flop came down Ah-3h-8h.I bet 20 into the pot and he immediately called. The pot was now about 70 dollars. He had about 140 left in front of him. The turn brought the 10s, making a board of Ah-3h-8h-10s. I bet 50 at the pot and he re-raised me all in for 90 more.The turn seemed like a good card to me and I was surprised by the raise as I assumed he would fold here. Is this an easy call? Easy fold? It was 90 to win 260.Peace,Jay

[tobytobey 0]

I think its a call. You have TPTK and the nut flush draw. Even if you are behind to a set, you have as many as 11 outs.

[MrNiceGuy 0]

If you're behind to a set, you're about 4-1 to hit. If you're behind to a made flush, you're around 5-1. The pot's only laying you 3-1.So, if you were sure that he wouldn't make this play without a flush or a set, you should fold. Without knowing the opponent though, I think I would call, since I would assume there's some chance that he's holding a worse A (or another AK) or that he's semibluffing with a heart in his hand.

[mk 11]

I think it's a pretty easy call. You're getting almost 3:1, your tptk might be best right now, and if not, you've got 9 outs to the nuts.

[tobytobey 0]

So what did you do?

[Naismith 0]

Well, hell, I called. I thought there was a chance he had 10-8. A10 also frequently kills me in this spot. I also thought that I was ahead here a high percentage of the time and if I wasn't, I thought my three kings, nine hearts and possibly my ace were good. Also, to be honest, I have a hard time getting away from hands like this.Anyhow, I'd like to see some more responses, so I'll post the results at the bottom.I called and the river bricked; no heart, no king. He turned over black AQ and I took the pot. He berated me for calling his all in and another guy at the table (that I think might've been his buddy) jumped in and told me I made a horrible call and got lucky.Peace,Jay

[Kendren 1]

they berated you? I hope you said "You're right, it was awful. What times do you guys play regularly, anyways?"

[TJ_Eckleburg 0]

Yep, awful call, and an awful hand. AK beating AQ, now who does that? Only the fishiest of the fish. You're garbage.Nice hand... I'd have insta-called. The only thing I'd be worried about at all would be QhJh, but we're still drawing way live to that too.That's the good thing about TPTK + NFD ... no matter what, you're either ahead now, or behind now and drawing way live.

[Naismith 0]

I said the same thing I almost always say..."You're right, I'm just learning the game. I make a lot of stupid mistakes, though."Every once in while, I will talk trash back if I think it will give me some kind of edge, i.e. getting the guy to play pots with me when I'm clearly ahead. For the most part, I'm looking to keep a friendly, fun-guy table image, though.Peace,Jay

[akishore 0]

am i the only one here who thinks a turn check is reasonable?aseem

[bdams19 0]

I called and the river bricked; no heart, no king. He turned over black AQ and I took the pot. He berated me for calling his all in and another guy at the table (that I think might've been his buddy) jumped in and told me I made a horrible call and got lucky.Peace,Jay

You made a good call. As for those other two clowns, just blow it off. Aseem, taking the free card here is not a bad idea either.

[TJ_Eckleburg 0]

am i the only one here who thinks a turn check is reasonable?aseem

Sorry, but yes, you are.EDIT: I stand corrected. My opinion doesn't change though.The Ts completes no draws. The only thing we're behind to now that we were ahead of on the flop are 10-kickers hitting and TT. Since the flop was so strong for our HAND and the turn was so innocuous to EVERYTHING ELSE, there's no reason to slow down.Checking would be very weak tight.

[akishore 0]

am i the only one here who thinks a turn check is reasonable?aseem

Sorry, but yes, you are.EDIT: I stand corrected. My opinion doesn't change though.The Ts completes no draws. The only thing we're behind to now that we were ahead of on the flop are 10-kickers hitting and TT. Since the flop was so strong for our HAND and the turn was so innocuous to EVERYTHING ELSE, there's no reason to slow down.Checking would be very weak tight.

it's not about weak-tight, it's simply about comparing how far ahead/behind you are to the range of hands our opponent could be on, and the effect of betting on those hands.here's an example from tournament theory for advanced players. this is also NL HE, and again, assume you have a moderate amount of chips behind you on fourth street as you did on this hand.you have Ah Kh on the button. on the turn, the board reads Kc 9h 6d 2h. your lone opponent checks. should you bet or check?in the book, the answer is this is a clear, flat-out check. try thinking about why that is, and compare that hand to this.please, it's not automatically weak-tight to check instead of bet. especially in NL, unlike limit, you can't just be betting every opportunity. sometimes the best EV play is to check, and betting is a close second. still, checking can be a better play.aseem

[TJ_Eckleburg 0]

I acknowledge checking can be better than betting sometimes. I have also read TPFAP, and while the theory is sound, it's not 100% applicable here because of the disastrous ramifications of losing a pot in tournament play.My way of thinking on this hand is that we've flopped an absolute monster. It's highly likely we're ahead right now... and even if we're not, we have a very live draw to stay ahead. We're probably ahead, AND we have a nut draw. Pot equity is huge. There's no reason not to bet, or let them catch a free kicker, or some shenanigans like that.

[TheIceman05 0]

am i the only one here who thinks a turn check is reasonable?aseem

I always check this turn to induce a bluff. I check the river too, and usually win a gigantic pot from a hand like AQ. The last thing I want to see here is a Q or J, and I don't want to see a heart, either, because it'll kill my action.When I play NL, I'm playing s/h, and I make 90 percent of my money inducing bluffs on scary boards when I'm pretty sure the other guy is full of shit.Why would he move in on the turn? Small flush? If so, why not raise the flop? To me, this looks exactly like a poorly played AJ/AQ, maybe with a heart draw to go with it.Ice

[allinbluff35 0]

am i the only one here who thinks a turn check is reasonable?aseem

if we have position on villain in this hand and he checks the turn, I'm checking behind.

[mk 11]

in the book, the answer is this is a clear, flat-out check. try thinking about why that is, and compare that hand to this. there is a key difference between the hand here and the hand in tp4ap though, aseem: position. out of position, i don't mind leading out on this turn. in position, however, if it is checked to you in this spot, betting is terrible. i hope people see why.

[akishore 0]

in the book, the answer is this is a clear, flat-out check. try thinking about why that is, and compare that hand to this. there is a key difference between the hand here and the hand in tp4ap though, aseem: position. out of position, i don't mind leading out on this turn. in position, however, if it is checked to you in this spot, betting is terrible. i hope people see why.

we're on the button in both hands.aseem

[akishore 0]

am i the only one here who thinks a turn check is reasonable?aseem

if we have position on villain in this hand and he checks the turn, I'm checking behind.

thank you, dave. we are on the button this hand according to the preflop part of the OP, so even though OP doesn't say "villian checks" on the turn, i'm assuming he checks.it feels good to have who i consider to be probably the best NL player on this board agree with me that a check here is good.aseem

[akishore 0]

I acknowledge checking can be better than betting sometimes. I have also read TPFAP, and while the theory is sound, it's not 100% applicable here because of the disastrous ramifications of losing a pot in tournament play.My way of thinking on this hand is that we've flopped an absolute monster. It's highly likely we're ahead right now... and even if we're not, we have a very live draw to stay ahead. We're probably ahead, AND we have a nut draw. Pot equity is huge. There's no reason not to bet, or let them catch a free kicker, or some shenanigans like that.

we have a monster, eh.it's not a monster against a set or a flush.what's key is that you might get checkraised.in limit, it's not as drastic, because getting checkraised costs one more bet (though this is still a close decision in limit), but in no limit, this can be horrendous because you can be checkraised for not only all your chips, but to the point where you don't have enough odds to call if you're behind.now, you won't know whether you're behind or not, so you're in a very tough spot.when we're ahead, though, we're way ahead. honestly. even a pair has five outs at best, but usually four if one of them is a heart. there's really not much to protect from.another key thing is that you can then induce a bluff on the river. this adds a significant profit in NL games, actually. in my experience, NL players tend to bluff significantly more than limit players, and obviously, those bluffs are a lot more expensive for them and a lot more profitable for us when we catch them.you say there's no reason to bet, and i say there's plenty if you have fear of getting checkraised by both hands you can beat and those you can't. the fact that you're never way behind but are significantly way ahead usually just makes checking a little more attractive since giving a free card isn't as bad when you're way ahead.aseem

[Blink20 0]

. in position, however, if it is checked to you in this spot, betting is terrible. i hope people see why.

I absolutely disagree.

The turn brought the 10s, making a board of Ah-3h-8h-10s.

There are many hands he is calling on the flop with that he could still be way behind. Any ace, any flush draw Jack or higher, any pair and flush draw. This is not the worst of turns, and you have a monster holding even if he is ahead. There is no reason not to get the rest of you money in.In position, saying its terrible to bet in position is absurd.And yes, considering op's hand and the villian's range of hands, checking behind on the turn is weak/tight. Inducing a bluff is just a silly way of saying, I hope the villian makes a mistake in bluffing. Really, you should be hammering your opponent in this spot with value betting. I may not be as strong as a player as absolute, who apparently is the resident no limit expert, but this advocating on checking the turn is absurd. If you're not going to be TPTK, nut flush draw, then I don't know what you are betting.

[Naismith 0]

I don't like to check a lot because I prefer to be the one dictating the action. That said, I can definitely understand the concept behind checking here. Of course, a queen on the river is an absolute disaster, but I would've been able to get away from that, I think.In fact, the more I think about the hand, the more I like the check. I'm either way ahead (as I was in this scenario) or behind to a flush or two pair. The check gives me a free look at the river, gives the villain a chance to bluff if he's way behind and let's me catch my card for free if I'm behind. If he has KQ in this scenario and catches one of the three jacks that doesn't give me a flush, so be it. He played it like a clown and will eventually give it back. Let me pause for a minute to discuss this with my roommate/poker strategy guy......okay, we've both jumped onto the check bandwagon here. A jack or queen on the river is disasterous, but there are only a possible six that hurt me (and less if the hypothetical AJ/AQ don't include a heart). Plus, it gives the out-of-position player a chance to take the pot on a bluff after I've "given up" on my play.God, this post rambled.Thanks for all the discussion.Peace,Jay

[mk 11]

. in position, however, if it is checked to you in this spot, betting is terrible. i hope people see why.

I absolutely disagree.

The turn brought the 10s, making a board of Ah-3h-8h-10s.

In position, saying its terrible to bet in position is absurd.If you're not going to be TPTK, nut flush draw, then I don't know what you are betting.

As aseem alluded to earlier, the reason you check behind here is because your hand HATES a c/r here. This should be obvious.This is a hugely important concept that a lot of nl players don't understand. I'm talking about the notion of your hand HATING a raise. When you are given a free card with a draw to the nuts, you take it. I think a lot of beginners hang themselves too often with semi-bluffs because they've seen it on tv so often. Another perfect example from Sklansky is when you hold J6o in the BB and there are 4 limpers. This is an excellent spot to throw in a decent sized raise. Now consider the same scenario, except you hold 99. Most players are much more likely to raise with this hand than with J6o which is wrong. If someone comes over the top of you when you hold 99, you wasted a good hand. Raising with J6o, you don't mind at all if someone comes over the top because you have no problem mucking it.

[strategy 4]

Another perfect example from Sklansky is when you hold J6o in the BB and there are 4 limpers. This is an excellent spot to throw in a decent sized raise. Now consider the same scenario, except you hold 99. Most players are much more likely to raise with this hand than with J6o which is wrong. If someone comes over the top of you when you hold 99, you wasted a good hand. Raising with J6o, you don't mind at all if someone comes over the top because you have no problem mucking it.

You're advocating a decent-sized raise from the BB with J60 in low limit NL cash games? Or are you talking about his tournament book? Either way... that's a great way to spew chips.I've read Sklansky's book on tournaments. It's mostly common-sense stuff, and some of it just doesn't apply to the tournaments most of the readers will be playing. I have one link that trumps any tournament book out there by a long shot: http://tinyurl.com/89om3

[mk 11]

Or are you talking about his tournament book? Either way... that's a great way to spew chips.Yes. No.