Villain is 68/7.8/1.8 in 6-max games. The turn card pairs the board and I get check-raised by the BB. In this case I am sure the villain has a piece of the board given the previous hands I have played, but I would not put it past him to use this scare card to get me to fold AK if he felt I was bluffing and he had a 9 or 6. It seems read-dependent in deciding whether to 3-bet or just call this down - for example, if he is LPP I just call this down, but if LAA, I 3-bet. Does this sound about right?

Ultimate Bet 0.25/0.50 Hold'em (6 handed)

Preflop: Hero is MP with [Kc], [Kh]. CO posts a blind of $0.25.
1 fold, BB calls.

Flop: (6.40 SB) [6h], [3s], [9c] (3 players)
BB checks, Hero bets, CO folds, BB calls.

Turn: (4.20 BB) [3c] (2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets, Hero...

I prefer calling down.

If he's semi bluffing, he bluffs the river when you call. You win the same when he misses. If he hits, you lose less.

If he has a 9, you win one bet more. If he has a 3 or better, you lose 2 more.


Players can be erratic at lower limits, but i think that in general, they dont semi bluff checkraises nearly as often as they do with hands that beat kings there. Im not sure how high an AF 1.9 is for someone with that high a VPIP, but i dont think it's high enough to have him pulling that sort of move with a 9 regularly.

it's high,
He's quite the LAG

Don't lags usually raise top pairs on the flop though?

Maybe if his turn aggression was proportionately high relative to his flop aggression, i can see 3betting the turn.

I think a LAA player is capable of making the same check-raise with both top-pair and trips. This being the case, I like your line of just calling down as chances are I win 1 extra bet if he has TP but lose at least 1 extra bet if I showdown my overpair to his trips.

call and RAISE THE RIVER, bay-bee!

aseem

I think he's more likely to have air than a 3. And more likely to have a 6 than a 9 - not that that matters. I like Aseems line. I think the turn c/r is pure BS but 3-betting here may fold him here or on the river.

Either raise now or raise the river. That 3 could be bad, but it's usually good.

to the raise crowd:

because a 3 makes little sense in BB's hand?
because of his donkish stats?
because we have an over pair, and a good two pair?

Are you raising if BB 20/6/1.8 ?

I'm thinking BB is aggressive post flop; but being so loose, he could have a 3. So it sounds like you are just playing the numbers and assuming he's pulling a transparent bluff.

thanks

Isn't that what poker's about.

BTW, the fact that he may be on a bluff makes waiting til the river to raise better.

well, yes.
I'm unsure when they are both loose and aggressive because a player like that can call with a 3 in the BB.

But why raise the river? Aside from getting one more lead out from bluff before he folds.

Perhaps what I'm trying to ask is, what will pay us off on the river, that we should not have been 3-betting against on the turn?

Nothing.

IF it's a situation where he is bluffing, you prefer waiting for the river because he donates an extra bet when continuing his bluff.

If it's a situation where he has a 9, or something that you beat that can call, you're indifferent to waiting. Same value, basically (and he has roughly as many outs to improve as you do, so protection isnt a big deal).

If it's a situation where he has a 3, or something that will cap the turn or 3bet the river, you're indifferent to waiting. You lose the same amount.

I'm assuming that those advocating a river raise are doing so only if the river doesn't bring a flush card.

I'm also assuming that you're showing down your hand no matter what here.

He's not calling a river raise if he's bluffing with air. The river raise extracts value from A9, 96 and lower pockets, though. I like the idea of calling the turn, spiking a king, and then raising the river.

the turn raise extracts too, while making him pay to draw.

I prefer turn raise

He may have 0-8 outs

For instances where it's a turn semi bluff, i think it's better to have called. The high end of the 0-8 spectrum consists of flush draws almost exclusively.

If he semi bluffs a flush draw, he'll always throw out a bet at the river UI. You win the same if he doesnt improve, since he almost never bluffs if you raise. You lose less when he improves.

Him paying for a draw is good, but when you're guaranteed to get that same value regardless of whether he makes his draw, calling is better.

If the flush draw doesnt hit, you raise the river and get equal value out of worse made hands. You lose the same against better made hands.

Let's compare the ideas of raising this turn versus waiting to raise on the river.

Some of his possible holdings:

3x: He has you beat. And you will be losing 3 more bets either way.
Answer: Doesn't matter

Bluff: If you only call the turn, he may bluff again on the river. You would not gain this extra bet if he folded to your turn raise.
Answer: Raise the river

9x: If a blank falls on the river, you may get 2 more bets from him either way. But if a scare card falls, he might passively check-call the river. Thus getting an extra bet on the turn seems safer.
Answer: Raise the turn

Semi Bluff (54, 87, cc): Make him pay for his draws now; He won't pay you on the river if he misses.
Answer: Raise the Turn

Conclusion:
Villain may be holding a number of different hands.
Getting a little fancy and delaying the raise until the river has its merits.
But, with this strategy, there are chances in which this extra river bet will not be obtained.
Making the raise on the turn and getting the extra money in the pot right away seems to be the safest and most profitable play.


--cnm

This guy is pretty aggressive. If he is semi-bluffing and misses the river, he will still bet as a bluff. Also, he may end up pairing one of his cards, and call the river raise out of desperation.

Same goes for when he holds 9x. I don't think this opponent is one who generally thinks in terms of scare cards. He likes his hand, so he bets.