Good post failsafe.
My initial instinct when I first read the handhistory was to check behind turn and call a riverbet/bet myself, so I am absolutely not thinking betting turn is 100% correct, good to have a discussion!
I think against a decentish regular at midstakes, with no history, checking turn is definitely correct for all the reasons stated. Against him, we will sometimes be bluffed/valueraised off of the best hand on the turn, and he is not likely to call turn+river with a wide range that we beat, ever. Therefore we are likely to only get 1 more bet in general, and the river is the best place to get it as it is probably more likely to get a call from a random J (probably, our line might actually look like a completely standard pot-control-top-pair line and he will probably fold river anyway).
Against a random 50NL regular though, I don't think these things apply. I havn't played at 50NL at a while, but I am fairly certain we do not ever need to worry about a nitty regular there check/raising turn as a bluff with either air or a picked up flush draw+pair. It just will not happen. Therefore if we get check/raised on turn, fine, we pitch the hand being VERY certain we are beat and not taking the opportunity to check behind/see showdown for one bet on river did not cost us anything. Seeing a showdown vs a hand that beats us is not worth much, the bonus to seeing a showdown is that you cannot be bluffed. Against this guy, we are not going to be bluffed anyway. Checking behind against the 400NL regular is to stop him from occasionally taking away pots on the turn with random stuff, where he is still not doing it enough to warrant a calldown. He is allowed to get away with some bluffs that we just cannot call down against lest we pay off his far more likely good hands. Against the 50NL guy, his range is like 100% value, 0% bluff, always.
He will also call down sometimes with AQ or even worse! The reason he is on $50 tables is either because hes a busto high stakes shark rebuilding because he needed to withdraw everything to pay for a kidney transplant, or more likely, hes just not that good yet. He will make mistakes. I am not saying hes awful, but the average skill level on these forums, even 50NL players on these forums, is likely considerably better than random people that are attempting to play OK having read an Ed Miller book a week or two ago. Just because you can correctly come to the conclusion that AQ is likely not good on the river in this spot doesn't mean he can.
The final point is that he will turn his hand face up with his turn play. If he check/raises, he has 66, AJ, JJ, etc, we fold. If he check/calls, we are winning a very high % of the time an thus have the opportunity to go for a third street, if we want. We do not always have to bet turn and follow it up with a river bet, checking behind river will often be the best thing to do based on his timing/the river card. I just think allowing ourselves to set up a situation where we can correctly make yet another +EV decision (for a large bet) on the river using our superior judgement has to be pretty powerful. I guess I am saying that a turn bet has to be +EV over the long run unless the guy will literally fold virtually all worse, although likely by not quite as much as a bet on river having checked turn would be, but this is made up for by the fact that we have the opportunity to make yet another +EV play on river should we decide a river bet will be +EV. Its very important to remember that betting turn/folding to check/raise has not lost us any more than checking behind turn, calling river would have done. We are losing 100% of the time both when we call on river and get shown a better hand, and when we bet on turn and get check raised.
I hope im making some sense! I repeat that my initial instinct vs a good, solid player was to check behind turn, but then thought about this alternative given that the guy looks like a standard low-limit, predictable regular. |
United States. Oct 10 2008 13:21. Posts 10849
