Nl10 QT second pair checkraise

Hi,

I think c/r flop is fine. he is going to c-bet most of his pre-flop raising range and middle pair decent kicker is ahead . He would also likely rather call his draws than 3-bet so you don´t get blown off your hand and you can always pick up Q/T/ flushdraw on the turn which improves your hand.

That also allows you to c/r wider range for value.

best regards,

Originally posted by Kaitz20
Hi,

I think c/r flop is fine. he is going to c-bet most of his pre-flop raising range and middle pair decent kicker is ahead . He would also likely rather call his draws than 3-bet so you don´t get blown off your hand and you can always pick up Q/T/ flushdraw on the turn which improves your hand.

That also allows you to c/r wider range for value.

best regards,

thank you for your time, I have just one theoretical question for you: does our QTs belong to our value or our blufrange here? I guess you could even call this a semibluf. I'm asking this because someone claims that by your comment you mean i should add QTs to my valuerange, and my reasoning that we are semiblufcheckraising here is wrong.

Sorry to bother you with this trivial question, but it could mean that my reasoning is way off even if I make right move ( but for wrong reasons)

There seems to be a consensus on my blog on dutch forum that way I played my hand, especially the c/r on flop, was completly wrong. When I gave them your review, they still not agreed on the play despite the arguments you presented in your review. Their main argument is that if we start check-raising second pairs our check calling range is too small and we have to play impossible turns.

I must admit that because of the seniority of the members (a mod, a coach, a few good regs...) of the dutch forum I am starting to have second thoughts myself. Could you please give my some arguments that might convince "non-believers"? Btw I still have the highest regards towards your review, it's just that two forms of "authority" have completly different views here, i thought it was just fair to let you know

Hi,

Standard line would be c/c, but I don´t think it is bad to mix up your c/r value ranges. If you´re only c/r there draws/air or two pair+ then it is very easy to play against you, since your value range are mostly KT or 22, since most players would expect you to 3-bet pre-flop mostly KK/TT pre-flop and you don´t have K2s, T2s your pre-flop calling range.
Only problem by c/r is that you would build bigger pot, but since you can continue on diamonds, T, Q and possible also J, A turn cards, then I don´t really see how this can be bad unless player decides to 3-bet bluff us (which in nl 10 isn´t going to happen)
So ending hand mostly on the flop should be good line, also you get value from draws, don´t let them see free turn cards and don´t take passive line.

Imo QTs with backdoor flushdraw is value on the flop, since it is ahead CO steal range:
board: 2dKhTh
Hand Equity Wins Ties
QdTd 55.12% 107,934 3,496
20% 44.88% 87,560 3,496

but once called you can turn it semibluff on good turn cards.
board: 2dKhTh3d
Hand Equity Wins Ties
QdTd 41.70% 1,431 0
KQ, KJ, Ah*h, QJ, JJ, QQ, AT, AK, AA 58.30% 2,001 0

Their main argument is that if we start check-raising second pairs our check calling range is too small and we have to play impossible turns.
- I agree that you don´t have to c/r mostly with second pairs, but consider CO steal ranges, his half pot c-bet, board texture and our equity I think this case c/r is good line which to take, since you end up taking pot down most of the times and can also barrel a lot of turn cards.

best regards,

Thank you for your time and effort, after thinking spot through I too came to conclusion that this line is ok, there seems to be a lot of resistance within Nl community, hope argumentation makes them rethink spot and take all factors in consideration.

best regards