Can't find it in the hand history.

CO 3 bets a lot, but he has shown he can get away from hands. SB donks a lot and is a pretty bad player.

I'm in the UTG with AsJs.

Hero Raises, CO 3 bets, SB calls, Hero calls.

Flop 3s 5d 7h.

SB bets, Hero calls, CO calls.

Turn 7s.

Sb bets, Hero calls, CO calls.

River 3h.

SB bets, Hero Raises.

There is a hand somewhat similar to this in SSHE.

Is SB likely to be donking into all that strength 3 times without a pair? If that's the case, then I can get behind the river raise. Raising strikes me as probably being better than calling, as you can get CO to fold A-high, but it only makes sense if there's a decent chance SB is full of it.

I generally don't love the play, since on the double-paired board it seems obvious. It'll still be a very tough call for the CO to make, assuming he doesn't have an overpair.

On this particular hand, it isn't bad, but it seems like raising the turn would be better in nearly every way. I generally fold on the flop also.

I think raising the turn would be better than raising the river.

2nd that

I don't like the turn raise idea. Knocking out CO cuts down on the value of our flush draw, and risks a 3-bet from SB if he has trips. If SB is donking it up with nothing, then I think a river raise is better than a turn raise- we still knock out CO, and we win a bit more from SB. (Although the river should be folded unless the chances are significant (say 20% or more) that SB has been firing away like this with nothing.)

I'm okay with the flop call only because of the read that CO 3-bets light preflop, which makes it more likely that our outs are clean (I'd guess we have 6.5 outs here) and less likely that he raises behind us.

Raising the turn is way better than raising the river.

A) If the SB is donking, you are more likely to chace out the CO on the turn than the river.

B ) If you are wrong about the SB donking, you will find out if you are wrong cheaper (3BB) when the SB 3-bets and still have a 20% chance of hitting the flush on the river if you are wrong instead of having no outs or chance to win if you are wrong on the river and the SB 3-bets (costing you a total of 4BB instead of 3BB).

C) If you raise and are right and the SB calls, and the CO folds, you can feel pretty confident about betting the river, or showing down for free if the SB checks.

D) Even if the SB does 3-bet with nothing, and you call trying to hit the flush, there is a small chance he will give up and check the river, giving you the opportunity to check or bet if you think he was full of it.

E) No mater what happens, you still have a lot of outs on the turn! On the river, you've got nothting but a stone cold bluff!

I'd have to agree with mrdannyq, raising the turn is better in every way.

A. Why would you want to risk getting three-bet just to knock out one player? Also, we have practically equal chances of knocking someone off of a hand when we face them with two cold, whether it be on the turn or the river. MNG also brings up a good point about how raising this turn minimizes the value of our flush draw.

B. We didn't call this turn planning to raise any river. The river card just facillitates that decision since we are often chopping (or even winning) and raising will often fold other ace high hands that chop with us, earning us the whole pot instead of 1/2.

C. I fail to see how this analyzes this particular hand. At any point in any hand, if you do something and it is "right" in that specific hand, it doesn't make it right for the hand itself when based on hand ranges, situations, opponents, etc. You know this.

D. He could 3-bet, and we could cap, and he could fold. This doesn't mean that raise/capping is correct in this situation. There are always "chances" of something happening but it's essentially useless to say "there is a chance he does this" without quantifying how often the event happens. And I'm nitpicking here but checking and betting this river is essentially the same if SB is full of it (ie we win at showdown when we check, or he folds when we bet and we win. We win the same amount just in different ways).

E. This river is not a stone cold bluff, and whether it is or not doesn't affect whether it is the correct decision for this hand.

A. He is doing that on the river. Why would you want to risk getting three bet on the river instead of the turn?

B. Not calling the turn, intending to bluff the river? Fair enough. But you are probably going to split or loose this pot the majority of the time. Agreed, you will often chase out another Ace. But also, when you do loose, you are often getting 3-bet. So the 3-bet possibility midigates the benifical possibilities of chacing out another Ace (how much, I don't know... I would guess that will vary greatly by opponent).

C. I will agree with that... I was just trying to get at the fact that you can gain the same info on the SB and put people to a similar decision and possibly get away cheaper by acting on the turn instead of the river.

D. I hate capping the turn and betting out on the river when the SB has shown agression the whole way and 3-bet my raise OOP.

E. As I said in 'B', I think we chop or lose the majority of the time. I think the possibility of a 3-bet strongly midigates the possibility of chasing out another Ace when we would hve otherwise chopped. So, it may not be totally a "stone cold bluff", but I fail to believe we are raising for value.

Anyway... I always like to have outs to help bail me out when my dumb moves backfire! lol... so, having the nut flush draw makes the turn move more attractive to me. If I think A-high might win would rather call and split the third opponents money than be faced with calling a 3-bet or possibly being bluffed out of the pot. If I raise the river, I'm kicking my a$$ if the SB 3-bets.

But hey.... I suck at poker , so take my opinions with a grain of salt!! That's half the reason I post my opinions.... so I can get other peoples rebuttals and hopefully better opinions!

NWNewell,

I think you are confused. We aren't forgoing raising the turn so that we can raise any river. ie, if we choose to call this turn, we don't have to raise the river. That card just presented an opportunity to use our fold equity and possibly steal half of the pot.

Also, I appreciate the constructive posting, whether I agree with it or not

Yeah, that is true... I guess I went of in the wrong direction a little. I guess what I was trying to say is that even though I don't think I would raise the turn either (or have any intentions of calling the turn to raise the river), I think there is even less value in raising the river, even with the double paired board, than there was on the turn. I very well could be wrong.... but I just don't like playing the this river that way....



Thanks.... and I may not be right (as I rarely aml... lol). I hate when people make blanket statements like "should have folding", "should have raised", "I wouldn't play it that way" without anything to back up their statements. It is not what they "say they would do", but there reason "why they would do it" that you will get the most value out of. There are a lot of smart people on here that have good advice and know the right play, but people (like me) will never truely learn unless they understand "why".

Also, my constructive posts help me too. If I tell you "why" I think something or would play a certain way, it is easier for someone smarter to shoot me donw and tell me "why" I'm wrong.... lol.