Turn cBets with a medium strength hand

Hey guys,

I'd like to start a discussion regarding turn cBets in 4 different scenarios with some of the regs here at CC.

I'd appreciate it if you would include your regular stakes and the typical line you'd take in each on the turn.

I'd like to take my favourite hand, AsKc, and examine situations where we've flopped TPTK in 4 different settings. We've raised 3BB preflop from mid or late position and have one caller. In setting 1 and 2 we're in position, setting 3 and 4 out of position. On the flop we cBet 5BB and are called by our opponent. Based on the following boards, what's your line?

1) IP - Kh 9s 4c (6d)

2) IP - Kh Jh 7d (4d)

3) OOP - Kh 9s 4c (6d)

4) OOP - Kh Jh 7d (4d)

If you're cBetting the turn, why? If you're checking, what's your reasoning and your line of action if the villian bets/checks turn.

100nl FR and I'm betting all those boards. I'm betting for value because my opponent can (and will) call with worse.

.10/.25nl

1. Rainbow board...i'm betting.
2. Lots of draws, i'm betting trying to win the pot now.
3. and 4 I'm betting into my opponent all the time.

In scenario 1 I may flat call if the opponent is betting if he/she has been close to a lag player. Then raise their river bet. Most of the time though I'm straight forward betting all the way.

When you say 100nl FR this means the bb is $100 or the buy in is $100? What does FR mean? Thanks!

The buy-in is $100 (blinds .50/$1) and FR = Full Ring.

Bet. Bet. Bet. Bet. But I play 2nl.

Glad to finally see some replies, although it's been about 3 days now. Always hard to be the first to reply to this kind of thread, so thanks for getting the ball rolling WVH.

2nl - I'm with you: bet, bet, bet, bet.

25nl and up, I tend to disagree.

I pose the following questions for those of you firing a turn cBet on all of these boards:

While I agree opponents are apt to call with worse, what's your plan of action if they raise? If they call the turn bet, are you planning to cBet again for value on the river? How does being IP or OOP change your line? BTW, we're talking about a general opponent, readless.

At 25nl I'm prepared to get all the chips in with TPTK. For me...if someone raises the turn I decide to either reraise(commit) or fold depending on what I know about the opponent. If I know little I'm inclined to get the chips in. It's a dangerous hand but I was hoping to make a TPTK, that's why AK is a premo hand.

What's your take on it JMcCabe?

Here you go!

I'll preface this by stating that I was a NL200 and NL400 reg for quite a while, but never really got beyond those limits.

I'm inclided to go broke with AK up until NL10, but not after that. I think NL25 is probably a starting point for players who have started to smarten up. NL50 for sure.

AK isn't a premo hand because it can make TPTK. It's a premo hand because it matches up well when you get all-in preflop, especially in shorter stacked situations. It is an excellent semi-bluffing hand preflop, where you can maximize fold equity with big squeezes and raises, and still usually have close to 50% equity or better if all the money gets in preflop. However, as the stacks get deeper and the pots get larger post-flop, the value of AK goes down considerably. It is a dangerous hand because it plays well in small pots and poorly in big pots, unless the money was put in preflop.

This is the reason I call it a medium-strength hand. The reason I outlined those 4 scenarios as I did (IP - dry board, IP - wet board, OOP - dry board, OOP - wet board), is that against a typical, unknown opponent, the line I take with TPTK will be quite different. I really love fx's analysis, because it takes the different scenarios into consideration. Also, I asked you guys to include your stakes, as I also think your typical line should change as you go up in stakes.

I'd love to see a few more regs post their thoughts though, before I add mine.

[quote=JMcCabe;1669489]I'll preface this by stating that I was a NL200 and NL400 reg for quite a while, but never really got beyond those limits.
inclided to go broke with AK up until NL10, but not after that. I think NL25 is probably a starting point for players who have started to smarten up. NL50 for sure.
I'm
AK isn't a premo hand because it can make TPTK. It's a premo hand because it matches up well when you get all-in preflop, especially in shorter stacked situations. It is an excellent semi-bluffing hand preflop, where you can maximize fold equity with big squeezes and raises, and still usually have close to 50% equity or better if all the money gets in preflop. However, as the stacks get deeper and the pots get larger post-flop, the value of AK goes down considerably. It is a dangerous hand because it plays well in small pots and poorly in big pots, unless the money was put in preflop.

Thanks for the insight here.

Are you saying you would rather get all the chips in preflop w/ AK (in most situations)? I'm thinking out loud here...let's say you do put a "semi bluff" squeeze on and the original raiser shoves. Stacks of the bettor determines calling or folding...right?

If you both are deep and he shoves it's time to muck, and if he's below average we were planning on him folding or calling his shove.

Worst case scenario is the opponent is deep and flat calls the reraise.

Let's say we are facing a raise from a player who we're not comfy playing for all the chips preflop w/AK. Is it ok to flat the raise ip? Or is it more profitable to reraise or fold?

If you want to refer to an AK thread, that would be fine. Thanks!

only playing 5nl, so I guess I would be taking the exact same line as fx on every hand...btw, congrats on the "dream job" jmccabe, got the email from BIB about it

Playing low stakes (various) .5 .10 .25nl

AK is really a drawing hand but preflop I will always raise (at least 3x BB depending on the table)
On the turn I will c-Bet with TPTK but will be ready to let it go if I get a decent re-raise(not a min raise but a substantial re-raise)
Also if really depends on what I know or don't know about my opponent.

Just my 2¢

Nice thread

Not exactly. I'd like to be the aggressor preflop with AK and if I happen to get 1/3 or more of the effective stacks in preflop, I'm most likely going all the way with it.

Yes, stack sizes and pot odds will generally determine your move here. You're only really crushed against AA, and you have an A-blocker making that hand more unlikely than TT-QQ. Against KK, you're roughly 2:1, again with a K-blocker, so factored into a fairly tight 4bet shoving range, your can still be getting fairly good odds to make the call.

That said, AK is a great 4bet "bluffing" hand against agressive 3bettors. This will usually commit you if they 5bet shove, but the combination of fold equity and pot odds will more than make up for the times that you "get it in behind".

Right. When we're both deep, you'll usually be put in a difficult situation when your opponent flat calls, especially if you're OOP. What you do post flop will be very opponent dependent. I'm more likely to cBet and give up when I miss after 3betting AK preflop and being flatted, as you're generally against a pocket pair. A turn cBet at that point is extremely opponent dependent.

I will often flat call as opposed to 3bet with AK when I'm in late position at a table where I'm expecting the blinds to fold out the majority of the time and see a flop headsup IP. I don't want to bloat the pot preflop against a single opponent. That said, I will occasionally 4bet big after I flat from LP and one of the blinds tries to squeeze over us. Flatting here helped me out last year at a WSOP side event where I was able to let go of my AK cheaply after the blind squeezed and the original raiser made a big 4bet shove.

I don't think it would be profitable to start folding AK IP, but the decision between flatting and 3betting is again, opponent dependent.

About a month ago I started another AK thread here (AK - To cBet or not to cBet), which looked at why I don't like cBetting AK on the flop when it connects on a dry board such as in situations 1 and 3 above.

I'd still like to give a couple more regs a crack at analyzing the 4 scenarios before I put in my 2 cents though.

Bedtime.

Do you have a check button ??

1) IP - Kh 9s 4c (6d): This board I would lean for checking, because if we bet here and bet any river hands like KQ, KJ, Qs Js 10s etc will often fold even to the turn bet, by checking behind we are giving a card which will help us keep pot control and will usually get the same value when we are ahead, but lose less when we are behind.

2) IP - Kh Jh 7d (4d): I would lean towards betting against most opponents (unless you had a strong read that they would always semi bluff with their draws) I think you should be much happier to get your money in here because many flush draws will get in, hands like KQd etc.

3) OOP - Kh 9s 4c (6d): For this board I am likely to check, for similar reasons to the first spot, but also because I believe that quite often people will float you when they are in position, and you could get many worse hands here trying to bet you out of the pot, meaning sometimes you might get people to bet twice into you with pretty much air if you check call. I also think that quite often people will call the flop with hands like sets or two pair and hope to raise it up on the turn when you might *catch up* a bit, meaning you will not commit yourself by leading out again.

4) OOP - Kh Jh 7d (4d): This hand I would bet for the same reasons as situation 2.

.10 nl FR bet .40 pre 1 caller villian no stats
IP pot (.85) cbet .50 flop villians call pot (1.85) If villian chks turn i cbet 2/3 pot in pos, if villian bets out on turn it depends on how much.

OOp i would bet 2/3 pot on turn.


Ip pot (.85) cbet .50 flop villian calls pot now (1.85) i am betting pot to see if villian is chasing flush draw and if he is i want him to pay for it ..

oop i bet 2/3 pot and see what villian does.


My problem is , with no stats on villian i might play it very passive on all the situations until i get a read on the type a player i am playing against. If he gets aggresive with me and we have no hands on each other what does he have is he just aggresive, does he have sets draws,etc, but thats just my opinion.

Hey guys,

Thanks for your answers.

For me, the turn is generally the place where I decide whether or not I want to play a big pot. I'm usually betting or raising with a polarized range: either my very strong hands, semi-bluffing hands, or pure bluffs.

I consider TPTK to be a medium to strong hand depending on the situation. It has a lot of showdown value, so I usually want to get to showdown and not get blown off my hand in situations where I'm not willing to get all my chips in the middle. I generally want to get 2 streets of value against an unknown on a dry board, but will put my stack in the middle with a wet board or when effective stacks are roughly 30BB or less.

I pretty much agree with fx's analysis, with a couple of modifications. I have a feeling you are destined to move up in stakes soon sir.

This is sound advice. While there are a lot of hands that check-call the flop that we beat (KQ, KJ, KT, QJ, JT, J9, T9, 98, pocket pairs like 77, 88, TT and Kxs in a lot of low limit games) most of these hands will not continue if you barrel the turn. Only KQ and KJ are likely to call a 3rd barrel on the river and that becomes less likely as you go up in stakes. You are much better off to check the turn to try and induce a river bluff or "thin value bet" from your opponent. If your opponent checks the river as well, a 2/3 to 3/4-pot bet will usually get paid, as you should have bet the turn with a K, right?

I'm a strong believer in making opponents pay dearly for their draws on the turn. Fx again has provided pretty good advice, as I'm certainly betting the turn IP on a draw heavy board when my opponent checks. If I get check-raised, I'll be willing to put my stack in the middle readless and if I've run into a set, well, time to open up the notepad.

If my opponent leads out, I will either call or raise, usually depending on his stack size and the pot odds he's laid himself with the bet.

The one thing I disagree with is raising the river on a brick that misses all of the draws. At this point, out TPTK is officially a bluffcatcher. If you raise, all of the missed draws will fold and only stronger hands will call. If he checks the river, it's generally time to value bet.

Again, good analysis imo. Since this exercise was against an unknown player, I'm usually check calling here as well. If my opponent checks behind on the turn, I'm probably either betting 2/3-3/4 the pot on the river to give the illusion that I have to bluff to win, since I've shown weakness on the turn, or just check-calling to give him the chance to bluff the river. This will usually be determined by my perceived notion of his abilities based on stack-size. If I choose to lead out on the river, I will most likely fold if my opponent sticks in a big raise here.

Agreed with barrelling this turn, and simply calling a raise. You have roughly 80-85% equity against naked flush or straight draw (increases with blockers you might have), 75% against a pair and a flush draw, 65-68% against a straight flush draw, but you're drawing dead to sets.

What does that mean? Even against big draws you're pretty much WA/WB. By flat calling a raise, you'll be able to induce a lot of bluffs on the river by check-calling, especially on a scary river card. I would again argue against check-raising the river, even on a brick, because I can't see any hands worse than TPTK that are raising the turn AND calling a check-raise on the river.

If I barrel the turn and my opponent flat calls, I'm again going into check-call mode on the river, as I've gotten my 2 streets of value and am happy to induce a bluff on this board from one of the many hands that missed or decide I'm weak for checking the river.

Again, all of these are my standard lines against unknown opponents at probably all stakes from about NL25 and up, 6max or full ring.

This is actually a really great thread. These are the types of spots that add up to winning at poker. I'll be giving it another good read very soon. Thanks for the discussion