20 live temp 6 handed.

UTG...new too me...seems tagish..He opens UTG, I 3 bet AcQd in sb, only UTG calls.

2dKc4d...I bet, he calls

2dKc4d5d...I bet, he raises, I call.......perhaps check/call was better.

2dKc4d5dTh...I check and?

I'd check call the river as played.

I'd check call the turn 100%.

turn play mumbo jumbo:

Vs the button with the same action? I'd bet call the turn 100%.

Vs cutoff with the same action? I'd check raise sometimes and I'd bet call sometimes.

Vs the HJ with the same action? I'd bet call much more often than I'd check raise.

See where this is going? The tigher the ranges involved are the less bets I put in on average; the wider the ranges involved are the more money I put in on average. (tight ranges utg = 0-1 bet) ------ (CO, HJ) ------(very wide ranges btn = 1-2 bets)

Note that 3 bets might go in vs the cutoff or HJ, but I the average will be somewhere between (0-2 bets)

----

Less mumbo jumbo more strategy:

Can beat a bluff, can't beat a value hand.

So vs good opponents, the value of calling will be near (0ev).

Vs bluffy opponents, the value of calling will be slightly (+ev).

Vs value heavy opponents, the value of calling will be slightly (-ev).

Notice that only 1/3 options results in a loss of ev. While 2/3 options provide a return on investment that is greater than or equal to zero.

I think that considering all that, and then considering the unknown spew factor x 10^147, this should be a call on the river.

I think Bob's got the story right. The reason why we hate having to check call this river is because we've allowed Villain to increase his range's strength by raising on the turn. Check call the turn to try and induce some bluffs.

J Lot

I must be a nit cuz I really hate our hand otr given the action and your description: 'UTG...new too me...seems tagish..He opens UTG'

I don't mind the turn bet due to outs, but what are we putting him on that warrants calling when he presumably fires the river after raising ott? Maybe I play bad, def a possibility....

Nice post! Thanks.

What is your reasoning for CR turn in certain scenarios?

The fact that he is unknown, He could have missed draws, the pot is decent size, potential spaz factor. You call and expect to lose a lot, but not always.

Even though we have outs on the turn, the bet just costs us money in the long run except for those times we induce a bluff raise. He is not folding better to a bet and there is not a ton of value. Its better to give him some rope.

It's about the action regions that make up my strategy heads up out of position:

check fold/check call/check call or check raise at frequency/check raise 100%/check raise or bet call at frequency*/bet call/check raise/bet 3 bet.

vs the button: I bet call.
vs the cutoff: check raise or bet call at frequency.
vs the HJ: check raise or bet call at frequency.
vs utg: check call 100%

as the ranges get tighter, AQo will move closer and closer to the (check fold) region.

*there is a small group of hands here that are bet folds, but they need to be perfectly selected to have the desired effect vs a tag because tag turn raising ranges are pretty solid. The desired effect with this bet fold region here is to reduce the profitability of the opponent's range and to meter the opponent's raising frequency to avoid a leveling war, imo.

I still don't get why you'd xr *with AQ* in some scenarios.

Because I think the combination of draw value, protection, and showdown value make bet calling and check raising quite profitable; more profitable than check calling.

if I constructed my strategy with AQ like this vs this action:

vs utg: check call
vs hj: check call
vs co: bet call
vs btn: bet call

without ever putting it in the check raise, or the check raise at frequency region:

Then I would be skipping over the action regions: check raise, check raise and bet call at frequency. I think that as the ranges involved get wider, AQo will change action regions until the button is reached, where I bet call.

@Bob: What are you folding on this river if no pair isn't it?

Or better question, what do you think a TAGish opponent raises turn and barrels river with that we beat? Bare Ad?

Hands that can't beat a bluff, but I'm never in this spot anyways because I'd check call the turn.
Yes I think that's his most likely bluff hand AdJx in particular.

I mean I understand the argument of "given we're arrived in this way, we should call due to it being subgame optimal", but we already highlighted a willingness to not be playing an optimal strategy by betting the turn in the first place. I think sticking to the exploitative path and folding is fine.

This being said, I think call or fold on river is a trivial mistake either way, while betting the turn in the first place is a fairly big one.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is the read; what are we exploiting with a turn bet? All we're really doing is reducing the profitability of our draw, by giving our opponent the chance to fold bad hands, which in turn strengthens his range, while we're also introducing the possibility of paying two bets with a hand that has some showdown value as a bluffcatcher, and perhaps we're getting a bit of protection vs hands like QJs that flopped a backdoor flushdraw.

I agree.

-----

If you think about the ev of the options before any turn action occurs:

a) check call turn 100%/check raise river improvement and check fold unimproved.
b) check call turn 100%/check raise river Ace, flush, or straight improvement; check call blank rivers; check fold dangerous rivers.
c) check call turn 100%/check raise river Ace, flush, or straight improvement; check call all other rivers.
d) bet call turn 100%/bet call river Ace, flush, or straight improvement; check call all other rivers.

I like (c) the best, but (b) seems good too.

Our hand seems a bit too strong for (a).

Our hand seems a bit too weak for (b).

So I compromise and land somewhere in the middle erring on the side of having a very showdown bound strategy as default.

I'd probably never bet or fold this turn. As played I still want to fold river but I'm a bit of a tagfish so who listens to me anyway.

Thanks Bob148! Truly love your detailed analysis.

mongidig / OP, I would have played the exact same way you did except maybe Check/Call river depending on how much of a calling station I am that day.

If our read is that villain is a TAG, my conservative read would put villain at too tight of a range in which I can't imagine chk/calling river is a profitable play.