I see your point. I've been working on expanding my thin value range and minimizing pot controlling medium-strength hands. This might have been over a tipping point.

I guess this is as good as any a time for the reveal.

I tanked forever, trying to come up with any reason why I should call. Without strong reads, my default in spots like these is to bet/fold for value. Most players don't bluff enough, so absent reads this is a very strong line by the villain, given I've shown so much strength.

Eventually, the villain called the clock on me. I decided to fold without showing. After the hand, the villain said he had 99. Which somewhat makes sense given my aggro image. He peels with a made hand and makes gin on the turn.

He explained that given the stack depth, he thought clicking it back would look even stronger than shoving because he's hoping I put him on a combo draw of some sort.

I think his analysis makes sense - anybody disagree?

Raise more pre (20), check turn, call non scary rivers ez game.

Turn bet isn't too thin. An example of "too thin" would be if V was raising your turn bet with QQ.

We are exploiting by utilizing b/f lines until we see a clear reason to adjust (ie our opponent is c/r or raising IP way more than he/she should).

You lost not very much vs a reasonably tough thinking villain who had you in a bad spot, congrats, GG. Well played.

The reason I think this is a pot control spot is because it induces river bluffs and bets or check/calls from a few worse hands than JJ, although not a ton with this board texture. Plus a b/f line on the river costs exactly the same as a b/f line on the turn while ending the hand.

I don't really get the case for the pot control check. Surely a lot of the hands that are bluffing the river are calling the turn bet, as are a lot of draws that miss and just give up on the river. Plus, most hands that fold will surrender some equity in the pot. You open yourself up to a c/r bluff, but that shouldn't happen too often.

I've been also working on trying to pot-control less and maximize value out of my made hands, but I don't think paired boards like this are going to be the spots where you want to really go for max value.

I agree that you should be pot-controlling the turn w/ a checkback and bluffcatching the river, or bet/folding the river if checked to.

What was your plan OTR if he called your turn bet then checked to you? Are you shoving for value here?

There's a good chance I check the river. I don't think I could have gotten three streets of value.

I've learned that the benefits of pot control are mainly against aggressive opponents who can and will blow you off the best hand. My concern with checking the turn in a lot of pots is a bad card may fall on the river and as a result I lose a street of value. I'd rather get the value on the turn then check the river back.

But you just admitted that going for three streets is likely too thin.

If not just for pot control alone, the best way you're going to get two streets of value in this spot is by checking the turn and firing again on the river. Yes, there's a decent amount of draws in your opponents range which you're giving free equity to, but that also gives merit to pot controlling because it's going to be gross if he flats the turn and shoves the river.

Checking the turn also makes you look weak and can easily induce a river bet from busted draws. On the same note, since V can have a plethora of busted draws, you can be checking the turn and firing the river with a lot of air, expecting V to fold a decent chunk of his range (thus he should be bluff catching relatively light, so now you're able to get thin value whereas he can't call you nearly as light OTT).

This is great stuff - I wasn't sure I was even going to post this hand! That said...

If the villain is on a draw, why would I ever want to give a free card? And if he's on a draw and the river bricks, is he ever calling a river bet?

Inducing through checking the turn is a weak line against an unknown because I don't know if he's going to bet a busted draw.

If he calls the turn and shoves the river, a lot will depend on what falls on the river, live tells, etc. However, it's generally going to be a fold against a relative unknown. So it's the same amount of $$$ lost but we lose value when he calls and check/folds the river or we check the river and win at showdown.

I think the case to check the turn is stronger when you center the argument around the villain having such a thin value that will call a turn bet AND we're ahead of.

A FD doesn't fulfill such a requirement? Turn check for PC is a little Harrington Nitty but doesn't it deny his implied odds? As played turn raise could be a semibluff because he wants to play for stacks with an FD and you have some FE on a paired board. Check takes away every advantage a drawing hand has against you.

Just throwing out some alternate thinking here.

I do think the turn bet was a bit light and my spidey senses were that he decided you were weak and shoved a pair+ or he hit 999 on the turn. Tough fold for sure.

IMHO most 1/2 players c/c c/c open-shove a 10 here, not c/shove turn unless they're older and might play Omaha or limit games.

Oh, and for me a PC check is always done considering that I raye the hand at 2 streets of value. It's not a check to give up, it's a check to minimize V advantages.

We have to think about his calling range pre from the BB to a decently sized open, which also peels one OOP OTF. If he's any decent player, he should be calling at least one street here with any pair, so 22-66, 87, 76. And then obviously 98 + his nutted combos. I would think a flushdraw should be check/raising OTF to maximize FE since you're cbetting range is really wide on this type of board, but it's not uncommon for a FD to take a check/call line as well.

Like you said, the argument for checking the turn is the fact that you're targeting too narrow of a range by bettting, or in other words, the value is too thin - because you're only hoping to get extra value from 98, 87, 22-66, and a FD. While we can't discount a FD, we can balance the lost value from the times a FD calls the turn and bricks the river with the times that we either deny them implied odds by pot controlling, or the times they brick and we bluffcatch (we can't assume they bluff the river, but we also can't assume they don't).

If we're only going for 2 streets of value anyway, then 98 and 87 are going to see the river and call the river bet anyway (at least they should be calling the river even when they don't improve), so there's no reason to explode the pot for those hands OTT. As for 22-66, those hands will almost always fold OTT but can find a case to bluffcatch OTR.

YGO stop saying what I'm saying but better.

YGO is nailing it in this thread, some really nice stuff he is poasting.

Hahaha thank you guys, appreciate that

I agree with a lot of what you're saying. More accurately, I agree with everything you're saying. With that in mind, I still think the turn is a bet.

My reasoning is this: We put V in a spot where he sometimes calls incorrectly with pair+gutshot combos and flush draws, or he folds his equity (which is a win in my book. I'm not afraid of variance, but there's no harm in winning a pot relatively uncontested). Now you're thinking "what if he c/r on the turn?" Easy, we fold because he isn't bluffing (rather, he isn't bluffing nearly often enough for us to be a hero).