0,1/0,2 Q3s

I think your right. only chance to win is betting the turn as well.

It depends...

Do you think he could peel the flop with hands like T9 J9 etc? If so, i like bet/folding the Turn but if you say he's weak and playing fit or fold on the Flop you're better off by check/folding the Turn. But i would assume that, although he's weak, he's calling with a lot that's 2 overs to 2 and 4. So i like playing bet/fold the Turn.

Suggestions?

Let's say, he would be a more agresive oponent, more creative in blind war, if he would peel me alot for bluff-raises Turn or bluff-iraisng Flop, on such dry board,

Firsttsunami, you still see a profitable cd with Q3s vs J9s type hands? T9s 87 etc?

Hi Guys,

First, let me just say that I absolutely agree with firsttsunami's analysis. It's certainly +EV to bet here if the guy peels this board as most players would. (Maybe if he's a foldingstation on the flop, I can see us wanting to give up.)

I'm really hesitant about posting the following stuff, because I fear some might misunderstand and misuse the concept behind it, however I feel it makes for good content and also can be helpful for people playing higher stakes. So disclaimer: don't put this in practice unless you know exactly why. You certainly can be a huge winner at micro and small stakes without ever doing what I suggest. (If you feel that it's too out of the context the post being on a microstakes evaluation board, please just move it to the discussion board.)

So if our opponent is a decent LAGTAG, or at least plays approximately the same in these spots as a LAGTAG would, I really like check/raising the turn here.

First off, I think we want to check this turn a lot. He called on this semi-dry board, the turn is really good for his range - it hits us much less, than his probable 3straight-heavy flop call range. It's definitely a spot, where I think we have to have a massive checking range - therefore we have to c/r a lot for value and as a bluff too. Without going into our xc, xf or xr valuerange, let's just take a look, why I think choosing this hand as a part of our xr bluffing range makes sense.

If we bet, it would be a marginal bet for sure (otherwise it wouldn't have to be evaluated:)), we probably don't have a profitable bluff in a relative sense (we're not gonna make enough better hands to fold). Of course the bluff is still profitable, because we make worse hands fold, therefore not giving them the chance to bluff us off our hand. Now with xr-ing, we can induce a bluffs from these hands, and we also can maybe get some better hands to fold, like an A hi freeSDbetting, or just a peeling QT type of hand to bet as the last bet in the pot. (The thing I'm getting at, that our opponent's bet/folding range should in theory contain much better hands than ours - if it doesn't, we make a lot of money with our valuecheckraises anyway.:))

Also, I'd much rather xr this hand and not J3, because the EV of betting J3 is higher than betting Q3 (because we make more better hands to fold against us, we win with less equity per se), therefore we (probably) make more profit if we leave that in our betting range. Also choosing this hand over hands like QJ, because it has more equity when it's up against a better hand because of the gutshot - and given we'll get 3bet really rarely, we'll be able to realize it 90+% of the time (and that's certainly not the case with betting, we'll get raised a lot here IMO). Also, I'd rather choose this hand over A3 or A5, because I think those have too much showdown value, and can be easily xc xc-d or xc xf-d (probably xf the riv, we're kind of low in our bluffcatching range). I think every hand below J3 and every hand higher than A5 is obviously a bad hand for xr bluffing.

What do you think about this argument?

Thanks in advance, cheers,
Madi

For whatever it's worth, here's my humble opinion:

Seems like an ok combination of holecards + board for a check-raise. I haven't read your analysis of precisely why this is a good spot that carefully, I'll trust you on that one.

From the meta-game perspective:
The check-raise bluff on turn ought to be in the (perceived) range anyway, at least against opponents who tend to notice such things. He'll be able to float flop, steal turn less, and might even make less thin value bets on the turn.

What is missing is a plan for what to do if he calls. Surlely, we'd fire again on plenty of river cards?

EDIT: Oh, yes, your caveat should be kept in mind. This is not intended for the stakes I play. [It should probably carry a government warning.] But, I know of a couple of players there that can be handeled this way ♦

/Johan =

First of all: Regarding to your question Rantrave: Bet/calling down with Q3 is too loose. If you are calling down Q3 you are calling down too much. This would be just profitable if you'd know that your opponent is calling and raising almost any2 but the board is relatively dry and you can't assume that he's raising so many hands as a bluff. So bet/fold is correct.

Good Post madorjan. I agree with you that, as we are very often ui on the turn, we should check a lot and especially against players who lilke to peel a lot and bet the turn ui, the perfect exploit is not to give up any air type of hand but rather keeping some hopeless hands (our bottom air - range) for checkraising the turn. But i would not take Q3 as such a bluffing hand because Q3 has got too much showdownvalue and to a checkraise he'll just fold too many worse hands but almost no better hand. I would rather checkraise here with J3s or 87 instead of doing this with Q3.

Hey there,

I disagree with you in the sense that I believe SDvalue is a thing that exist only and just only when you are able to realize it. In this case it's either calling down with our hand, or hoping that he checks back J hi? I believe in neither, therefore this hand has absolutely 0 SD value, therefore should be treated like such, and treat the opponent's possible random T9 as a better hand. As I said, I wouldn't do this with A3, because I think that has real SD-value, not just "is better than some of my opponent's hand" type of SD-value (which is SD-equity in reality, that we'll never ever realize, therefore it doesn't exist as real equity).

What do you think?

Cheers,
Madi