Extracted from the Checkup Thread Because Discussion is Good

[Trex8063]

Given we've (three of us anyway) have had so much debate about this hand, I kinda wish one of the big guns (BBB, bella, DougL, Tyler, etc) would chime in. Perhaps flop decision worthy of a thread.

[antneye]

Yes. I think this belongs in a thread. I typically cbet my whole range here but am intrigued by the discussion.

Let's not forget to add the times we improve on the turn to our thought process. If betting is wrong I don't see it being TOO wrong.

[tyler_cracker]

clearly the flop decision is thread-worthy. some nice work put in here by trex, aug, and rugby.

MODS, please extract post 2399 and everything after.

[tyler_cracker]

Originally Posted by Grromit

Poker Stars, Limit Hold'em Cash, 6 Players
Poker Tools Powered By Holdem Manager - The Ultimate Poker Software Suite.

Preflop: Hero is UTG with 7 A
Hero raises, MP folds, CO calls, 2 folds, BB calls

Flop: (6.4 SB) Q 8 J (3 players)
BB checks, Hero checks, CO checks

Turn: (3.2 BB) Q (3 players)
BB bets, Hero folds

CO is 54/15/5 very passive postflop
BB is 33/18/7 a bit on the weak/passive side

Both flop and turn are in question.

i looked for a bit but couldn't find the "cbet cbet always cbet in limit holdem" post from a million years ago.

i know that babar is well-known for saying "i always cbet 3-handed".

however, remember that rule #1 is "there is no always in poker". here we have loose opponents, one of whom cold-called a raise; on a tremendously wet, cold-caller-hitting board; and we missed completely. i would rather check and hope for a free turn than fire a hopeless cbet because "i always cbet 3-handed".

i haven't looked at the range/combo analysis closely, but i think they both fold to the cbet a lot less than 1 time in 6. that analysis also ignores the play of the rest of the hand (which is important but quickly becomes complex to analyze quantitatively), including what happens when our flop bet gets raised.

[tyler_cracker]

Originally Posted by nyrugby

I think relinquishing our initiative after raising utg vs only 2 villains would be playing too fit/fold and exploitable if anyone at the table is observant and thinking. I agree with augwest we can dump it later, I'm definitely not showdown bound if I don't hit an A on the turn.

i'm gonna pick on this one, rugby (but i'll ignore your tenuous "metagame" argument from a later post ).

it would be exploitable to check every flop we missed, but no one is suggesting we do that. this flop happens to be one of the worst ones possible given our hand and the rest of the situation, hence a rare occasion to pass on a cbet. it will be hard for an opponent to "exploit" something we do maybe once or twice in a hundred opportunities.

if you're not showdown bound (ui), i think you should want to cbet less. why make the pot bigger for someone else? we also no longer care about fold equity (assuming we even have any), especially if we aren't planning to fire a second barrel.

[datsmahname]

lol, nice title.

against weak/passive and loose/passive i bet the flop here. Its against the super agro or tricky guys where I think checking this kind of board becomes the better option. Against guys like these we can comfortably bet/fold.

as played folding is fine. your hand is basically face up and everything is scary.

[nyrugby]

Originally Posted by tyler_cracker

this flop happens to be one of the worst ones possible given our hand and the rest of the situation,

Why do you feel this is such a bad flop vs our perceived utg pfr range? OP labeled both villains as passive, aren't these the type we want to attack on a board that hits our range?

[tyler_cracker]

i don't feel anything about our "perceived" range. i feel that this range is extremely likely to hit our opponents' ranges and i know for a fact that we have nothing.

you don't make money from passive opponents by "attacking" them without a hand.

[nyrugby]

Maybe I'm miss interpreting passive for "foldy" Again this sounds too much like a weak fit/fold line post flop against passive villains. Maybe we shouldn't be opening Axs UTG

[Rooksx]

Originally Posted by nyrugby

Maybe I'm miss interpreting passive for "foldy" Again this sounds too much like a weak fit/fold line post flop against passive villains. Maybe we shouldn't be opening Axs UTG

There's a distinction between weak fit/fold and not betting when it accomplishes little. It doesn't sound like you're considering how their ranges connect with this board.

[Trex8063]

Originally Posted by tyler_cracker

i don't feel anything about our "perceived" range. i feel that this range is extremely likely to hit our opponents' ranges and i know for a fact that we have nothing.

.

This was my thought exactly.

Additionally, I'd not give the 54/15 CO much credit for having a perception of my range whatsoever in the first place.

[nyrugby]

Originally Posted by Rooksx

There's a distinction between weak fit/fold and not betting when it accomplishes little. It doesn't sound like you're considering how their ranges connect with this board.

I think I understand what you are saying about the flop may be hitting their range, but you have a CO who is a 54/15 who is very passive post flop so he can CCPF with a very wide range of hands.
The BB is also weak/passive who has the odds to call with almost ATC. I"m assuming the OP is representing a big hand opening UTG (that also hits this flop) and the BB checked to him. Why wouldn't you cbet? If the CO folds and the BB only calls the hero now has position on a weak passive villain.

[bellatrix]

Sorry, I just found this thread...

I did tell augwest that line about "If you can't open Ax suited from any position..." It's an old DeathDonkey line, so give due where it is deserved. I have found it quite useful!

Actually I like how hero played it.

Flop: If there ever was a board you should not cbet, this was it. It's fine to give up sometimes, you know. I'm also fine with cbetting 100% 3handed, but there are like a few situations where I don't and this is one of those boards.

Now the turn, I've been waffling back and forth, but since the pot is relatively small, since there were no bets going in on the flop, I'm fine with the fold, too. Yeah, yeah, exploitable and all, but I don't care that much, I'm pretty SD-bound normally anyway, not like they're suddenly take advantage of this one time...