AA - 3 bet turn?

[CoolDuck]

Hey guys,

This hand bothered me on the turn.  Player 4 has been a bit aggressive, but I don't have a clear read on him. 
Is this a missed reraise on the turn?  This is part of my game I'm spending time on, because I think I'm so passive once that second bet comes in.  The way it worked out I got him to bluff the river, which was my general thinking during the hand.  If he has a better hand, I save a bet and can hit a flush, if he's semi-bluffing he's aggressive and will likely bet the river.  But then I miss charging him in full for his draw on the turn.

<a href="http://www.pokerhandreplays.com/flash/replayer.swf?pokerhandid=304698" target="_blank">http://www.pokerhandreplays.com/flash/replayer.swf?pokerhandid=304698</a>

2nd question:  What's your general line against this player when you don't have a read on him?  At $1/$2 6 max limit, I don't feel like the average player is semi-bluffing this turn, as in maybe a higher stakes game.  Typically I'm a bit more passive until a have a better read, but maybe this is a mistake. 

[Acefilleddreams]

Why no bet on the flop?

With two obvious draws on the board I would be betting that flop

[CoolDuck]

Why no bet on the flop?

With two obvious draws on the board I would be betting that flop

I had just lost a hand or two and player 4 was aggressive.  I thought I would be able to check-raise, and maybe the players in the pot thought I would be on tilt since I lost 2 hands.  Back to the turn though.

[Acefilleddreams]

like you said I dont put him on a semi bluff at this level, but I would prob 3 bet the turn just charge him for a possible draw.

[CoolDuck]

The way I figure it ace, I have the nut draw, + possibly an ace otherwise.  My question being since I have so many outs anyway, raising is at best a smaller mistake on average when I'm wrong, and correctly charges him to draw to the river.

Oh where oh where is Tony

[Deadmoney]

Having 3bet PF your almost obliged to bet that flop, few players regardless of aggression are just calling a 3bet then betting after you check the flop.

as played Bet the turn, your losing value from AQ, Khx, + underpairs...I would certainly be 3betting the turn raise too

Regards David

[CoolDuck]

as played Bet the turn, your losing value from AQ, Khx, + underpairs...I would certainly be 3betting the turn raise too

I did bet the turn.  But is he really raising me on a semi-bluff here?  This is probably more player dependent, but I think on average players at $1/$2 limit aren't pulling these players often enough to make me want to 3-bet.

[Deadmoney]

Hi Cool,

I know you bet the turn,

I said "..I would certainly be 3betting the turn raise too", But I think given the play, you can raise the turn.

What range do you put him on that your ahead?

a) You 3bet PF (It wasn't capped)
b) You checked the flop, having 3bet PF.... so KhQx/JJ/99 may certainly raise the turn here
c) Your drawing to the nuts
d) and unlike NL, you have the advantage of C/C the river with little expense

Regards David

[CoolDuck]

Hi Cool,

I know you bet the turn,

I said "..I would certainly be 3betting the turn raise too", But I think given the play, you can raise the turn.

What range do you put him on that your ahead?

a) You 3bet PF (It wasn't capped)
b) You checked the flop, having 3bet PF.... so KhQx/JJ/99 may certainly raise the turn here
c) Your drawing to the nuts
d) and unlike NL, you have the advantage of C/C the river with little expense

I agree, I should have 3-bet the turn, especially after my planned flop check-raise went sour.  The fact that he's even a bit more aggressive than the average $1/$2 player, and the fact that even behind I have a good draw and plenty of equity means I'm not losing much either way.

[Coughy_boy]

"A bit aggressive," "aggressive."  I think you need to be more specific.  Does this mean "bets too often," or "is trying to run people off their hands?"  If you can't be sure, I think it's just value betting here.

[CoolDuck]

If you can't be sure, I think it's just value betting here.

Now you need too be more specific .  You mean is he just value betting, or that I need to value bet and 3-bet?

[Coughy_boy]

Although it's not precisely on point, I'm reminded of a discussion about check raising, I think it's from The Theory of Poker.  If you intend to check raise and no one bets, you've made a bad play.  But, further, if you check, someone bets, you raise, and no one calls, you've also made a bad play!!  Because you won one bet, but you almost always could have just bet and been called (or maybe even raised), without running the risk that no one would bet if you checked.

So I think what I'm trying to say here is that you must have reliable information before you attempt fancy play.  If you can't be very specific and very confident, just play solid poker, and value bet this hand.

[CoolDuck]

Although it's not precisely on point, I'm reminded of a discussion about check raising, I think it's from The Theory of Poker.  If you intend to check raise and no one bets, you've made a bad play.  But, further, if you check, someone bets, you raise, and no one calls, you've also made a bad play!!  Because you won one bet, but you almost always could have just bet and been called (or maybe even raised), without running the risk that no one would bet if you checked.

So I think what I'm trying to say here is that you must have reliable information before you attempt fancy play.  If you can't be very specific and very confident, just play solid poker, and value bet this hand.

This is a game of %'s.  Plays don't work 100% of the time.  And I disagree with your 2nd sentence about if you check, someone bets, you raise, and no one calls.  You've made everyone fold all their equity.  In addition, it's possible these players in position would never have bet at all, so getting one bet is great, and even if they had 5-10% at least you didn't give them a shot at another card.

I mean what if this player had AQ,KQ,QJ?  All within his range,  And the limper could also very easily have had a queen. 

Looking back at the play, it wasn't bad, but it terms of my game I should have bet.  Though occasionally with AK,AQ,AJ I 3 bet and give up in multi-way pots with a bad enough looking flop.  So there is some balance.

[Coughy_boy]

at least you didn't give them a shot at another card.

Actually, you did.  When you checked!!

[CoolDuck]

I was assuming one of them bet.  But your right.

Anyway, I should have bet, but the equity loss isn't that bad compared to checking the turn.  In fact my failed check-raise ended up getting the aggressive player to commit 3 big bets to a pot when he had no back-up draw, and only 6 outs to improve on the river.

[Tony]

Hi all, I'm not around much at the moment, life is busy...

Duck, as you seem to have already concluded, this hands plays a lot easier if you bet the flop.  However given that you didn't, I think you should raise the turn.  You're often ahead and if not you have lots of outs so it won't be costing you too much.  It is somewhat player-dependent though, since more passive players will never raise this turn without the flush.  But without a read and taking into account the fact that you under-repped your hand on the flop, I think a three bet is the best line.

[verstehen]

You absolutely have to bet this flop, especially multi-way.  If you were in his position (BTN facing a reraise out of the blinds) you would be checking behind all but the best flops.  Bet the flop for value.

Raising the turn is optional, no matter what you do you are committed to seeing a showdown in a pot this size.  Given that you have a redraw to the nuts re-raising the turn is fine, especially since you won't get paid off much when you get there.