Is This Standard? Basic Hand, 2-5

[Naismith 0]

Check-raising the turn is just spewy. Check-raising the turn with more money behind is even worse...until we start thinking in terms of being deep enough to fold out overpairs. Fundamental poker is betting to get called by worse or fold out better. It's not putting in money to end the hand.We're not raising to "take the pot". That doesn't mean anything. That's just a way to simplify decisions, not maximize value. We're not raising to protect with the way the action and the board have fallen in this hand. Raising accomplishes nothing unless we have some reason to think the villain spews off with worse.

[Naismith 0]

ok Akem (sp?)what happened to him anyways, he was the short stack nazi.. does he play mcuh anymore?

LOL, not sure. I used to have a great Omaha strategy guide that he wrote that probably isn't relevant anymore.Anyhow, I certainly am not a short stack kind of guy, but I think it's standard for everyone on a poker forum to rail about playing 100bbs when that isn't necessarily what is best suited for the player's skill set.

[trystero 0]

Royal it looks like a clear c/c on the turn. His line says that he's got nothing, so we want him to keep putting $ into the pot w/nothing. We want to maximize our equity against his range, and it looks like this,Big pairBig broadwayIf we shove he folds all broadway and snaps with his big pairs. If we call then we can c/c most rivers hoping he'll bluff. How is it preferable to just try and take the pot down now? It doesn't matter if we call this turn bet and c/c a 2 river and get owned by KK - we still maximized against his whole rangeBut yea fold pf to the raiseedit: yea Naismith said it

[Royal_Tour 0]

Check-raising the turn is just spewy. Check-raising the turn with more money behind is even worse...until we start thinking in terms of being deep enough to fold out overpairs. Fundamental poker is betting to get called by worse or fold out better. It's not putting in money to end the hand.We're not raising to "take the pot". That doesn't mean anything. That's just a way to simplify decisions, not maximize value. We're not raising to protect with the way the action and the board have fallen in this hand. Raising accomplishes nothing unless we have some reason to think the villain spews off with worse.

wow. you guys are so far off in this hand its incredible. I'd say, flat the turn, and dodge is a safe bet, knowing you're only dodging about 9 outs. but common.If you guys seriously cant tell you're ahead in this hand after his 50 on the turn, something is wrong with the way you think in term of "being in the villains shoes"we're all winning players in NL holdem cash games, live or online, so no advice is generally bad, but I cant comprehend how you all have trouble missing reading this villain.

[Naismith 0]

wow. you guys are so far off in this hand its incredible. I'd say, flat the turn, and dodge is a safe bet, knowing you're only dodging about 9 outs. but common.If you guys seriously cant tell you're ahead in this hand after his 50 on the turn, something is wrong with the way you think in term of "being in the villains shoes"we're all winning players in NL holdem cash games, live or online, so no advice is generally bad, but I cant comprehend how you all have trouble missing reading this villain.

It's not a safe bet. It's the way to maximize your value. Let's say we all agree that we're ahead after seeing his 50 dollar bet on the turn. Give me one reason to raise that makes sense other than not wanting to have to make a river decision.EDIT: For the record, I think the majority of responses are "reading this villain" correctly. Hell, I think you're reading the villain correctly. I just think you're reacting to your read in a totally incorrect manner.

[Royal_Tour 0]

Royal it looks like a clear c/c on the turn. His line says that he's got nothing, so we want him to keep putting $ into the pot w/nothing. We want to maximize our equity against his range, and it looks like this,

he WONT invest anymore Money On the river AFTER we CALL..He WILL Beat us if he hits anything.We CAN dodge 9 outs 80% of the time. But This doesnt accomplish anything more, all you're saying is you Hope he bluffs his missed hands.Your arguments are IF he has an Over pair, and we flat the turn, and flat the river we get to showdown cheap, with the advantage of having him bluff his missed hands.what I'm saying is HE wont bluff his missed hands, and NOW we give him the opportunity to catch a number of outs that he may have given his range is probablyAJs - AKs + all PP's over 10.

[Royal_Tour 0]

It's not a safe bet. It's the way to maximize your value. Let's say we all agree that we're ahead after seeing his 50 dollar bet on the turn. Give me one reason to raise that makes sense other than not wanting to have to make a river decision.EDIT: For the record, I think the majority of responses are "reading this villain" correctly. Hell, I think you're reading the villain correctly. I just think you're reacting to your read in a totally incorrect manner.

If you were reading this villain correctly, then you can agree he WONT invest any bluffs on the river (after we call his turn)

[Acid_Knight 2]

we're all winning players in NL holdem cash games, live or online, so no advice is generally bad

You're proving that this is not the case with each post that you make in this thread.

[Royal_Tour 0]

If we shove he folds all broadway and snaps with his big pairs. If we call then we can c/c most rivers hoping he'll bluff. How is it preferable to just try and take the pot down now? It doesn't matter if we call this turn bet and c/c a 2 river and get owned by KK - we still maximized against his whole range

I just want to be clear also!I said This is what I would do IF i had more chips behind.. So the c/r is not a SHOVE. it would be a check / raise leaving me with still probably 300 behind.

[Royal_Tour 0]

You're proving that this is not the case with each post that you make in this thread.

go back to 4bb.You saw first hand my cash game results, and anyone on FCP can attest I won every single match I played in any FCP event (that wasnt a MTT) against other FCP'ers.you shoulda played me HU cash live when you had the chance

[Acid_Knight 2]

go back to 4bb.You saw first hand my cash game results, and anyone on FCP can attest I won every single match I played in any FCP event (that wasnt a MTT) against other FCP'ers.you shoulda played me HU cash live when you had the chance

My implication was that your advice was not good. Not that you're not a winning cash game player.

[Royal_Tour 0]

My implication was that your advice was not good. Not that you're not a winning cash game player.

lolPlease weigh in Matt.would love to hear what you think is optimal. flatting the turn? why? cuz we're ahead and we can check/call bluffs?you think this villain is firing another bullet after we call the turn?

[Naismith 0]

We CAN dodge 9 outs 80% of the time.

I don't know where you're getting 9 outs from. He can never have 9 outs.

If you were reading this villain correctly, then you can agree he WONT invest any bluffs on the river (after we call his turn)

It's impossible for any of us to make that specific read, but it's still irrelevant. It doesn't matter if he won't invest any more on the river. If we raise the turn, he's only investing more money when he has us beat. I don't know why this isn't registering. The ONLY reason we ever raise this turn is if there's some sort of dynamic where we think he'll call us lightly. Let me reiterate this point. It doesn't matter if he never bluffs the river (though *never* is unlikely). It matters that raising the turn only makes us lose more money when we're beat. Raising this turn is a big time losing play.

I said This is what I would do IF i had more chips behind.. So the c/r is not a SHOVE. it would be a check / raise leaving me with still probably 300 behind.

Check-raising the turn with more money behind is infinitely worse unless we're deep enough that we've decided we can bluff out overpairs. These are extremely, extremely simple poker fundamentals:We bet to get called by worse or to fold out better.Ask yourself which one you plan on accomplishing when you bet. Make a quick range analysis. If it's unreasonable that any part of his range folds that beats you or calls that you beat, do not bet/raise.In this instance, his range consists of overcards and overpairs. He folds the first and calls the second. Do not raise.

[Acid_Knight 2]

Excellent post Jay.

[Royal_Tour 0]

I don't know where you're getting 9 outs from. He can never have 9 outs.

3 - aces, 3 - kings, 3- queens. we've put him on a AK, AQ holding. (or I put him on that) fair?

It's impossible for any of us to make that specific read, but it's still irrelevant. It doesn't matter if he won't invest any more on the river. If we raise the turn, he's only investing more money when he has us beat. I don't know why this isn't registering. The ONLY reason we ever raise this turn is if there's some sort of dynamic where we think he'll call us lightly. Let me reiterate this point. It doesn't matter if he never bluffs the river (though *never* is unlikely). It matters that raising the turn only makes us lose more money when we're beat. Raising this turn is a big time losing play.

This thinking is flawed in this case. Why? Because If you call the turn, Like you suggest, You are doing so, knowing you're going to check/call the river also.You're essentially planning to invest the same amount of money to find out the same result. which is we win, or we're beatHow we know we're beat on turn is simple. He calls our raise, or re-raises. (Now, an argument can be made that he could call a c/r with 2 overs, altough its highly unlikely.

Check-raising the turn with more money behind is infinitely worse unless we're deep enough that we've decided we can bluff out overpairs. These are extremely, extremely simple poker fundamentals:We bet to get called by worse or to fold out better.

I think you missed somethingYou bet to win a hand. If he calls with worse, he's making a mistake. You bluff to fold out better.The only time you can say you're making a bet that you want tp get called is when you hold a monster that you know you're way ahead.you have a pair vs a FD. his hand is worse, there is 100 in the pot. are you betting to get called by the worse, or are you betting to win the hand?

Ask yourself which one you plan on accomplishing when you bet. Make a quick range analysis. If it's unreasonable that any part of his range folds that beats you or calls that you beat, do not bet/raise.In this instance, his range consists of overcards and overpairs. He folds the first and calls the second. Do not raise.

I eliminated overpairs. i hope you did too.If not.. eeesh.. i dunno what to say.

[Zach6668 513]

3 - aces, 3 - kings, 3- queens. we've put him on a AK, AQ holding. (or I put him on that) fair?

He doesn't have AKQ offsuit.

[Zach6668 513]

You bet to win a hand.

No, you bet to get him to call with worse, or to fold better (or fold equity in the pot that he'd be getting the right price to call with.)

[Naismith 0]

Okay, I see there's no convincing you of this. There's simple math involved that doesn't even entail factoring in the percentage of time he slowplays or bluffs or whatever. The simple math is this. If we raise the turn, we lose an extra 250 every time we're wrong. If we check-call the river, we lose an extra 100-200 every time we're wrong.EDIT: I'll also add that if he never bluffs the river, we have an easy check-call on the turn and check-fold on the river and we lose nothing on the river, though no one has a 0% river bluff range.Lastly, I'll say this. Royal obviously is firm in his belief here, which is admirable. For everyone else that is trying to learn, please, please, please ignore his advice in this specific thread. I am certainly not saying to ignore his advice in other threads. I'm just saying he is giving fundamentally incorrect, fundamentally bad advice in this specific thread that will make you worse players.

[Royal_Tour 0]

He doesn't have AKQ offsuit.

he doesnt have 9 outs. right'but what i'm saying is you have to dodge 9 because his range could be AK, or AQ.I dont know if its one or the other. so I'm saying any paint is a scare card, that he could bet and we would have to fold to

[Acid_Knight 2]

I think you missed somethingYou bet to win a hand. If he calls with worse, he's making a mistake. You bluff to fold out better.The only time you can say you're making a bet that you want tp get called is when you hold a monster that you know you're way ahead.you have a pair vs a FD. his hand is worse, there is 100 in the pot. are you betting to get called by the worse, or are you betting to win the hand?

How have you been playing poker so long and you don't even know why you bet?There are 2 reasons. ONLY 2 reasons.1. You bet to get a worse hand to call2. You bet to get a better hand to foldEverything past that elaborates on one of those 2 categories.

[Royal_Tour 0]

No, you bet to get him to call with worse, or to fold better (or fold equity in the pot that he'd be getting the right price to call with.)

really?you guys are silly.you bet to get him to call with worse, or to fold better. and thats it? thats the whole point of betting in NL?

[Zach6668 513]

really?you guys are silly.you bet to get him to call with worse, or to fold better. and thats it? thats the whole point of betting in NL?

In a nutshell, yes.

[Naismith 0]

you bet to get him to call with worse, or to fold better. and thats it? thats the whole point of betting in NL?

In a nutshell, yes.EDIT: LOL, Zach.

[Royal_Tour 0]

In a nutshell, yes.

In a nutshell, yes.EDIT: LOL, Zach.

dive in deeper into strategy and theory, you'll see there are soo many times when you bet to win a hand because you're trying to eliminate the idea of gambling.You're trying to win a hand without having to go to showdown. AA $400 behiind vs Ks,Qs $500 behindon a 8s,5s,10h board. 200 dollars in the pot. You bet here. cuz you have the best hand, and want to win. and if he calls, thats great. he's calling without getting proper odds. he's making a mistake. and you're fine with that.If your idea of Betting purely for the fact of getting called by worse was true, Then you should be betting exactly enough to give him the odds he requires.anything more and you're not giving him proper odds and he folds. which would mean you made a mistake by not allowing him to call with worse.do you see why your idea of only betting for those reasons is flawed?

[Zach6668 513]

do you see why your idea of only betting for those reasons is flawed?

nope.