This site uses cookies to improve your browsing experience. By continuing to browse the website, you accept such cookies. For more details and to change your settings, see our Cookie Policy and Privacy Policy. Close

[NL2-NL10] NL2 - AT top pair oop

    • MancaMulas
      Joined: 12.03.2009 Posts: 4,494
      Grabbed by Holdem Manager
      NL Holdem $0.02(BB) Replayer
      SB ($1.60)
      Hero ($2)
      UTG ($2.06)
      CO ($1.88)
      BTN ($2.20)

      Dealt to Hero T:spade: A:diamond:

      fold, CO calls $0.02, fold, fold, Hero raises to $0.12, CO calls $0.10

      FLOP ($0.25) 9:club: T:diamond: 4:diamond:

      Hero bets $0.18, CO calls $0.18

      TURN ($0.61) 9:club: T:diamond: 4:diamond: J:spade:


      villain unknown. would you bet here again?
      what plan for the river if he calls again?
  • 1 reply
    • luizsilveira
      Joined: 27.11.2010 Posts: 2,320
      Grande Mancamulas!

      I think it's close. But my answer would be: yes!

      Reason: there are a few more hands that will call a bet on the turn but won't call it on the river. Plus we don't want to check back and bluffcatch on the river, as we can't really bluffcatch on 1/2 of the deck (and :diamond: , 7, 8, Q, K, you got the picture).

      The good part is: I don't think an unknown would ever bluff-raise there (even two pairs might have a tough time raising it up) so by betting we will invest the same we would on a river call and will have roughly the same information with a bit more value.

      (and the villain is not complete unknown; he limped the CO - that moves him a bit towards the "known" domain already :tongue: ). I mean, villain is probably at least a bit passive. Less reason to raise as bluff or to call both flop and turn to bluff river.

      That said, I think I'd only bluff catch on a A or T river. Most of the time I think he's checking back what we beat.

      Finally, checking turn is def. no disaster - but I think if you check there it's check/fold. Check/call is bad since we will be clueless on the river (even though it's obv. a less bad line vs. a passive than vs. an aggressive player who would pound on our weakness).