hypothetical situation.

I want to see what the general consensus is on this. If you know or think you know where I'm getting this scenario from don't mention it. What would you do in this situation and why.

We are heads up on a cash table and oop on the flop. You hold a medium-high pp (say JJ). The flop comes A-X-X where the X's are two undercards to your pp. The flop is a rainbow with no obvious draws. Preflop we raised and were called by the villain.

So for example..we have Jd Js, flop comes Ah 9c 2d. We decide to check it with the ace hitting, and villain bets a standard type bet (anywhere from say 50-80% pot).


Ignore the fact that we decided to check instead of c-bet. Assume the villain is relatively/completely unknown (although would you change your play with some stats on him?). The question is, what do you do with the ace on the board and the bet coming back at us. How often do you call? fold? do you ever fold? what's your normal play here and does it depend on anything?

Well sheesh I guess that is hypothetical. Since the hand is played all wrong (at least not how I would play it). I guess in that situation, not knowing the stacks, since we are out of position and didnt even c-bet I gotta simply call (how can we even mention this without knowing the bet size/stack size)? Anyways, I probably am not going to check raise with JJ. This whole thing is a cluster crap with it just throw out there like that. lol

I should have included that piece of information. You are both deep stacked. (we'll say >100 BB)

Yeah I realize that's probably most people's standard play but that's not what we did here.


I realize I'm being nit picky but I'm going somewhere with this. We raised preflop, then checked the flop and are now having to decide what to do with the bet back at us. Do you ever fold this? Do you always fold this? Does it depend and if so on what? Don't go so much into "what ifs" just keep answers based on what we know..unknown villain, the cards involved and deep stacks.

Hmm, so how often does he have an Ace, how often a 9 or lower pair or a plain old bluff after our shown weakness?

I play at a lot of different levels, so the answer for me would be different depending on what level I'm playing.

if you went to the bathroom and I sat down at your hand just after you checked it , he bets I fold , that would be the decision I made when I checked it . no way I can take three bullets to see if he really has it .

so IMO if I can't c-bet I can't call .

I wouldnt fold, because you are displaying weakness by not c-betting and I am sure that he knows it. So he bets to steal, just as often as he bets because he has an A. You gotta ride this one out, if the bets stay within reason I think (as long as nothing above a J comes as well). I could see you doing a check raise the first time, since if you do take 3 bullets anyways, you will have even more in the pot. There is that thing about c-betting after this and pretend it was a misclick as well =p ...

jmo .. by not c-betting but flat calling what are the chances the bets will stay reasonable , he puts you on no ace and knows he can convince you he has one . I might reraise in hopes that he realizes he was sucked in but if he reraised I would fold.

anybody else?

I'll give it a day or so before I put up why I was asking this.

I've gotta ask a question about the pre-flop action:

If we're out of position on the flop, it means we were in position before the flop. So: did the villain limp in and then call the raise, or did they raise then call a re-raise?

In the first instance villain could have just about anything. In the second, it polarises their range slightly more towards strong hands - though we're heads up, so it doesn't necessarily mean any kind of monster. I figure any pair, any ace, any two paint, connectors, and possibly even some paint-rag action.

Anywho:

In either case, our check on the flop after being the pre-flop aggressor makes it look like we're scared of the ace. If I were the villain, I'd be putting you on pretty much any pair that hasn't hit a set, a couple of high cards or even connectors, and sometimes complete garbage, and bet at the pot almost 100% of the time regardless of the cards I'm holding.

Which means I rarely (hardly ever, actually) flat call this. What's our plan if we flat call? Keep calling to the river? Check-fold on the turn? Hope a miracle J comes? Down that path lies confusion, difficult decisions, questionable value calls and poor odds of rescue.

I either raise this or I throw it away, with the action very much skewed towards the raising end. If villain is even halfway decent, they'll be betting this with air more often than not. They don't have to have an ace to call us, nor do they have to have one to bet here. In fact, if they had an ace they might even be inclined to slow-play it a little: there can't be many cards on the turn that will scare them greatly, unless you've already got them beat with a better ace.

If we get raised back, we can probably give villain credit for the ace and get away from the hand.

If we get flat called... then we're in a tricky spot. It could be a weak ace, or it could be something screwy that's hit a lower pair than ours and doesn't believe that we have an ace either. I suspect a flat call of a check-raise will result in the rest of the hand being played very carefully unless someone catches good, however, and we'll still likely get a cheap showdown - which I'd be inclined to take.

Just to clarify I mean we are first to act on the flop. So for example say we raised from middle position somewhere and villain called us in the CO preflop. Then we checked that flop.

Oooooohhhhhhhhhh... gotcha. So we're at a full table? I though you were talking 'only two people at the table' heads up.

Ignore what I said above then - at a full table, they've gotta have a much better hand to call you, an ace in their hand is much more likely.

I would've C-bet the flop in this spot, but as played I think it's a fold. I'll still throw in a raise occasionally just to keep them honest, but I fold this a lot more often, and I still flat call it pretty much never.

I think check-calling here is OK. It's a WA/WB type hand, although not as clear as if we held say KK just because there are more cards (Qs or Ks) that can hit the turn that we don't like. So we check-call the flop, check-fold the turn if our opponent bets again. If he doesn't bet the turn we're probably just trying to get to SD as cheaply as possible on the river with a real chance we're ahead of a smaller PP.

^^^^^ this. I don't understand the complaints about not cbetting this flop. What's the bet for, information? I think I've gone on enough about how bad of a reason that is in the past. Basically we have 2 options imo (I'm ruling out folding this right now):

1. We flat call, check turn, if he fires a turn bullet we fold (unless of course a J comes). If he checks turn we check river and if he fires a bullet then we've got a decision and reads come into play whether to call down or just fold.

2. We come over the top. A check-raise is considered extremely strong and we fold out many weak aces that could be beating us. It also prevents hands like KQ/Kx/Qx from drawing out on us and probably folding out QQ/KK. So although this may seem backwards, if we think there's a good chance he's cbetting this with air we flat call and if we think he wouldn't do this without a decent hand then we should be more likely to raise. Obviously if we raise and get called or re-raised we're done with the hand (unless he calls and we turn a J).

If we have this guy as a complete rock and someone who never bets without a monster hand (and he only flat called us preflop, so it has to be someone who's extremely tight but also passive in betting the hands, not even 3-betting AK/AA), then we can fold here. But we checked the flop, so many hands would bet here and to fold JJ here would be a huge mistake imo.

WVHillbilly hit the nail on the head considering we check the flop.

As for reads, against aggros i will raise there flop bet often and give up if they call. except against sppedle just give up on the fop coz he aint not firing the 2nd 3rd and 8th barrel unless you raise and even then he will fire it again alot of the time.

Against a tight-passive it is an easy fold. Also against relative donks who play fit or fold.

standard wa/wb flop play

I don't think check/folding the flop against an unknown is a huge mistake, but I think it's a mistake. Against typical players, we will often induce bluffs by checking.

We have to occasionally check/call the flop and check/fold the flop in order to maintain the possibility of trapping for a checkraise on the turn, if we ever want to do that.

Another situation, except this time we have K3o in the big blind and our opponent limped in the CO before the flop. We check a K-8-2 flop, and he bets. We should call, planning to fold the turn if he bets again, exactly for this reason. Multistreet bluffing is expensive and dangerous, and most players won't go there.

This looks like a DBitel situation to me.

Pretty clear answer there.

This situation screams for a c-bet. You didn't do it, and it was like handing the pot to villain on a silver platter. IMHO

Edit add; This is the type situation where at this particular moment in time, I feel this hand slipping into a get lucky situation. You will need to get lucky in one of a couple of ways;
1, you call, and a J falls
2, he twitches when he steals
3, he disconnects on your C/R bluff.

And BTW, this is a situation I would play wrong, even after I might have analyzed it correctly.

Suppose villain is sitting Ax. He could easily decide to slow play trap, and (in my case) cook my butt.

Since the c-bet was not the play, (big mistake IMO), if I had my senses about me I would fold to any bet here and slap myself for a really wrong play.

What does a cbet accomplish here? He will only fold a hand that we beat, so if we cbet we're allowing our opponent to not make a mistake. On the other hand, if we check he can make a mistake by betting with a worse hand/bluff. Since we "win" when our opponents make mistakes and since checking is the only way to induce that mistake here, checking must be the correct play.

If we know he won't bet without an A, check-folding is the obvious play but since he'll sometimes bet with a hand worse than ours check-calling this flop should yield the best value.

The c-bet should give us good info as to our wa/wb status. If we c/c we are committing about the same chips without getting the info.

As stated, we don't know if the 'unknown' villain will bet or check without an ace.

As for value in this situation. I don't see this as a purposeful value thing. The refusal to c-bet was a mistake IMO. These are Jacks, not K's or A's. At this point, again, IMO, we blew the 'getting value' part of the equation.

So it seems the only sane option left to us is a semi-bluff c/r. Problem again is these are Jacks against an ace on the board. For me a most uncomfortable proposition.

To have played the hand wrong, and then expect value? come on......

Sorry DJ I think we get more info by check-calling than cbetting and we risk the same # of chips.

Which line tells us more about our opponents strength (assume a blank turn card):

1) Cbet, opponent calls, check turn, opponent bets - (Is he really strong or does he think we've given up after a cbet and he can steal?)

2) Check flop, he bets, we call, check turn, he bets - (In this scenario he's been the aggressor twice so I can give an him more credit for the A and fold)

In the cbet scenario our opponent has taken 1 passive action (calling the flop cbet) and 1 aggressive action (betting the turn when you checked).

In the check-call scenario he's taken 2 aggressive actions and should more often than not be credited with an Ace.

I don't think check-folding here is a huge mistake but I do think check-calling should make us more $$ overall.

... but we're committing the same amount of chips with a lot higher equity.

His range for betting when we check is (usually) larger than his range for calling a bet. So if we want to commit $10, it's better to do it when we're, say, 65% to win rather than 50%. Or whatever the numbers come out to.

Good stuff in this thread. I thought this might be an interesting topic.

I've wondered about this situation before but what really spurred the thread was Harrington's cash game book where in this situation he says the following (paraphrased):

In the situation where we check the flop and villain bets back at us, we should call 100% of the time with the intention of checking the turn to see what he does.

It's also worth noting that there are no reads involved here...unknown villain. Reads could obviously influence our decisions.

He also says that he would lead out this flop on a cbet more often than he would check (he says 80% bet/20% check). Primarily as just a randomizer to keep our play from being obvious. So on the times we do check..how do you optimally play it?


I had to think about it for awhile, but I agree with this as it seems to be the highest longterm EV play. Basically... cbetting folds out most hands we beat and a few we don't (weak aces possibly). There's a very good chance our opponent doesn't have an ace and if he does that it isn't a strong one. Therefore, as someone (wv i think) said earlier, we gain by allowing the villain to make a mistake and bluff at our apparent weakness, and we take away his chance to do so with a cbet (and are possibly making a mistake ourselves by betting into a better hand).


This turned into a pretty interesting thread!

Harrington suggests betting this flop 80% of the time? Can you point me to that page? I'd like to reread it. I'd think it would be just the opposite 20% bet/80% check-call.

I made up a slightly different hand for the example in this thread but the principle is still the same.

page 260, volume I

Ok, thanks I'll check it out when I get home. Quick question was the hand in the book a lower pp (therefor increasing the likelihood that the turn might beat us)?

Yeah it was TT in the book instead of JJ. I don't think there would be much difference in approach though between TT and JJ here although there is a difference.

So, am I to take it you guys are willing to call any reasonable bet (+/- 1/2 pot) from villain here and if so doesn't that imply you will c/c the turn with no scary cards showing yet still unimproved? And the river as well?

For me, I would rather be pushing this hand at the flop, than getting dragged through this hand. More often than not, a c-bet takes this down. When it doesn't, it usually ends up with a reraise from villain, which none of the folks here would call, except as a total bluff. Rumor has it there are one or two bluffers running rampant .....

Quite a big difference equity wise Tygran. We are prone to another overcard, and are no behind another hand in villains possible range (jj) and ahead of 1 less (TT)

Not necassarily DJ, we can fold turn and river following further aggression as we can narrow villains range to a hand that beats us.

By betting we either win pot as it is, or lose a bigger pot that we put extra chips into. By check/calling, we stand to win a bigger pot than winning by betting, or lose a pot that is the same size as the one we lose if betting.

I agree there is a difference in equity (nothing to debate there), I never said there wasn't, but how different are you going to play TT vs JJ in this situation is my point?

I don't think it would be much different. If we go with Harrington's 80 bet/20 check on the flop with TT then JJ if anything would be what..slightly more tilted towards checking? But not a ton more.

Actually the difference is fairly significant. If we assign the villain a top 20% range our equity with JJ is + given the above flop (~52%) but with TT is a little less than 47%.

I get this, and I'm not trying to be stubborn here.

Harringtons example and advice with the TT was quoted above. I didn't think it through completely when I choose to post this with JJ instead, and my main motivation was to differentiate the hand slightly so it wouldn't immediately jump out to those who have read HoC.


Our equity is better with JJ. So instead of debating TT vs JJ equity which really isn't even debatable as those are cold hard numbers, maybe talk about what you would do different with JJ vs TT, if anything, in this spot?

what % do you lead out on the flop? what % do you check? do you always call the bet back at you? I think the answer is a very clear yes you call if you check it, with JJ or TT. Moreso with JJ than TT even but all the time with both.

Or to ask the question in a slightly more focused way, if we go with 80% bets/20% calls with TT to lead out on the flop as our baseline... Do you adjust these numbers and if so how with JJ?

Well, as I've said, I would check-call a lot more than Harrington recommends. I'd like to think that I'd cbet a little more with smaller pairs but I'd really have to dig through PT to determine if that's true.

no. Unless we have additional reads we can fold to a turn bet. We are investing the same amount but as mentioned the ranges have shifted vastly. If we follow your line, our cbet loses that extra flop bet that worse hands make. What happens when we bet and are flat called? Then we check turn and get bet into? I punish a lot of people who try to take your line that way. I'll flat call the flop in position with marginal holdings against players who cbet a lot and then bet at the turn if they check it. Most of the time it works. I don't mind when people I'm playing against do it, it's free money for me. Taking the C/C line on the flop just could easily be a slowplay or it could be a hand like we have. Our opponent can't double barrel this too often against us with a worse hand and as mentioned the river play is read-dependent, with my default play probably calling if he checked the turn.

Ok, I'll argue the other side. I have to agree w Harrington, I bet this flop most of the time.

The whole idea of wanting to "induce a bluff" when I have a marginal hand seems so foreign to me. Why would I want someone to make a play at me when I'm in a position where I will probably fold too often?

One of the very first concepts I learned in poker was "if you are going to call, then you are better off being the one who bets".

I am very happy to take this pot now, even if I get a middle pair to fold rather than make a play at me. I would rather be the one forcing my opponent to make a decision, rather than him putting me to the test (even at the expense of some equity).

As to the gaining information question, as pointed out already:

This is the whole "gap" concept: you need a stronger hand to call than to bet or raise. So your bet should give you MORE information than a check-call, as his hand is (theoretically) stronger, even though the action is a 'passive' instead of aggressive one.

I think the whole "wa/wb" concept gets carried way too far. In fact, in this case, it isn't even applicable, since there are bad cards (overs) for us on the turn (even more so w TT).

So what happens when you run into a hand like AT, who c-bets the flop, then checks the turn for pot control after you float ? He has now "induced a bluff" from you with a much stronger hand than JJ or TT.