This is based on a pretty important concept involving c-betting and the relative strength of your hand. I'm curious what type of responses we'll get here.

The hand in question:

6-max 200nl, 100BB effective stacks.

Hero opens for $7 from the CO with A♣J♥
Folds to an aggressive, thinking regular in the BB who calls.

Flop comes J♦10♠9♠

Villain checks.

What's our action (and plan) for the hand and why?

How do stack sizes affect our decision here?

i would bet out the flop about 3/4 the pot to the pot to protect against the many draws and to gain information on the villain's hand.

With the stack sizes so large, however, there is no way I am getting married to this hand. That is a very dangerous flop for top pair top kicker, a straight for example would have us practically drawing dead. Two pair or trips is a worry. Also that is an action flop, where it is likely by the end of the hand all the chips will be in the middle. No need to risk all that dough on TPTK imo.

If the villain comes back over the top, that would be a very tough spot. He could have a monster, but a smart thinking player like that could come over the top with a draw also. Regardless though the solid first bet is necessary.

I'm betting 1/2 to 2/3 the pot here. You didn't say what we opened for (3x the bb?), but assuming we didn't put too much in preflop, I'm not playing this hand big. Basically I'm trying to take it here and slowing down the rest of the way. I only play FR so I don't know how much 6-max should/would change my thinking here.

Originally Posted by WVHillbilly

You didn't say what we opened for (3x the bb?)

Sorry, OP fixed.

edit: also, the fact that it's 6-max shouldn't have too much bearing on your decision.

I'd bet pot here and if he called, and a straight or flush card came on the turn I'd slowdown. If a blank came on the turn I'd keep betting aggressively. If he check raised on the flop, it's a tough decision but I'd call. If he keeps betting on the turn I might fold.

With Top pair good kicker against the blind who could have almost anything I bet the pot and call a shove I think. If he has the straight so be it other than that he is on a draw and worth a chance at stacking him.

If the BB is short stacked I pot it and reconsider to a shove, to me it would be way less likely he is pushing with air or anything that doesn't have us beat here. Just my $.02

I disagree, I check behind.

The player is aggressive and on this flop we are going to get c/r-ed 95% of the time (the 5% being when vil has a lower pp). There are a gazillion draws who will c/r here and put us to a hard decision as even if our hand is good at this point it's shockingly vulnerable. Although made hands may have bet into us for protection I think vil can still easily be holding a straight, poss 2p, a set, and a tricksty overpair. In other words if we c-bet we put ourself to a very tough decision most of the time and get involved in a big pot with a relatively mediocre holding. Betting gets us too invested if we have deep stacks.

If a blank comes on the turn and it's checked to us again we can begin to comtemplate a protective bet.

We could treat this as a wa/wb situation pretty easily. Checking the flop and calling down light is certainly an option, this time however we are likely more slightly ahead or slighly behind. We can bet and fold to a sizable raise, we can bet and fold to any scare card on the turn.


Personally i try to reach showdown here cheaply. Check.

I would make a pot sized bet here. I am relatively certain that I am ahead here, but I want to eliminate any drawing hands. I want a call from a weaker Jack, but I want to take away pot odds for the drawing hand.

Jake I think that approach is too defensive, you're only thinking about the hands that beat our AJ not all the hands we are beating. And before we see the flop its good to try to narrow down his possible hands. We raised from late position so he knows we might not have much of a hand, he was in the BB so he was getting better odds to call with a weaker hand, and he's aggressive so that's more reason to think he called with a weak hand. But he didn't reraise so I don't think he has AK AQ or AA-1010 here. If he flopped a set or two pair wouldn't he bet though to protect his hand against all those draws?

Originally Posted by Bentheman87

Jake I think that approach is too defensive, you're only thinking about the hands that beat our AJ not all the hands we are beating. And before we see the flop its good to try to narrow down his possible hands. We raised from late position so he knows we might not have much of a hand, he was in the BB so he was getting better odds to call with a weaker hand, and he's aggressive so that's more reason to think he called with a weak hand. But he didn't reraise so I don't think he has AK AQ or AA-1010 here. If he flopped a set or two pair wouldn't he bet though to protect his hand against all those draws?

Firstly, aggressive doesn't mean loose. Secondly, as a "clever player" he could be disguising the strength of his hand so I think overpairs etc. are very possible (although purely statistically less likely). Thirdly I don't think he needs to bet to protect his made hands as generally we are going to c-bet this flop (or so vil thinks ) for protection with any typa hand we'd raise with pf. And to return to the beginning of this post, we are not losing any value from the hands we are currently raping by checking behind - in fact we're gaining value from them as they could bluff at us later on. So there is no purpose in betting and defensive play is often correct in these kind of wa/wb situations (although as tb pointed out the "way" is not really the applicable word)

Although we can be pretty sure we're ahead here, I'd check behind just for the fact that you say we're playing a thinking opponent. If we're playing against just your everyday bad player the check probably means "I missed or am scared of the flop, please bet and then I'll fold". Although it also depends on our image as well, and what our opponent thinks we think of him. I'm thinking that if he has any kind of straight or flush draw he bets that right off, but even a straight would want to bet because of the flush draw out there, so either he flopped an absolute monster (straight with a flush draw?) or he completely missed it. Either way here we don't want to be betting here.

Furthermore, the thinking part comes into play more here. If we bet here, what's he going to think? Would we bet a straight? Maybe, but that's about the only hand we could have where we would not be scared of getting our money in. He's already checked, so we'd probably check behind with a draw (unless we have a very strong draw which could perhaps be ahead at this point). So if I'm that other person (we already know he's aggressive), I'm check-raising here to a bet on this kind of board. Again our image is important here as well, but against most people he could easily check-raise this, putting us on a hand very similar to what we do have.

So I think we have to check behind. Now at this point, facing an aggressive player, it's very likely he'll bet this turn no matter what comes. As long as it's a reasonable bet and another scary card doesn't come (3rd spade, 4 to a straight) we can then call this bet. On the river you can't believe he'd fire another bullet without a hand beating ours, so we can fold to pretty much any river bet, although all of this is also read-dependent. Most likely our position pays off and we get a check on the river which we can then check behind and see just what kind of hand he had for relatively cheap.

So I check the flop with the intent to call a turn bet and fold to a river bet.

Originally Posted by tenbob

We could treat this as a wa/wb situation pretty easily.

I don't think this fits into WAWB. There are a ton of drawing hands out there that keeps us from being WA.

Originally Posted by tenbob

we are likely more slightly ahead or slighly behind

I agree completely. My opinion is to keep the pot small here. I would definitely fire a bullet here, but keep the bet to 1/2 the pot so you can easily get away if you are check-raised or a dagger falls on the turn. I think checking the flop would be bad as playing an agg player leaves you open to them leading the turn and not being able to control the bet size. This may cause you to fold the best hand only because they read weakness on your check on the flop.

Great discussion here, guys. The poll is still close so I'll wait a bit more before posting what I've recently come to understand is the 'standard' line in this situation, and why.

Here are some of the key things to consider in this hand:

-How likely is our hand to be best here on the flop?

-How good is our equity in this hand vs hands that ch-raise? ie how likely is our hand to hold up in a showdown if we were to get it all in?

-What sized pot do we want to aim for here?

-What are the possible mistakes we could make in this hand?

-From all this, what's our ultimate goal for the hand?

I also check behind, fearing a check raise from an agressive player with a draw. I just think controlling the size of the pot is the best option here. If villain bets turn, i call a non straight card on the turn. If villain checks turn i bet out. But i think we need to check behind here to avoid getting into a big hole with just top pair.

I don't hate a check behind here, but I almost always c-bet against a single opponent, if I hit or not. If I'm check-raised here (likely) I'll fold. Basically, I'm betting to win the hand right now or end my involvement. Maybe I'm just setting myself up to be bluffed though so I'm interested to hear what you have to say the "standard" play should be.

Against several opponents I like checking here because of the combined possibility that we're beat and that someone will draw out, but against just one player we need to bet here so he doesn't get a free card to draw out. TPTK against one opponent is very likely the best hand, but he most likely at least has an open ended straight draw or gutshot straight draw.
"Great discussion here, guys. The poll is still close so I'll wait a bit more before posting what I've recently come to understand is the 'standard' line in this situation, and why.

Here are some of the key things to consider in this hand:

-How likely is our hand to be best here on the flop?

-How good is our equity in this hand vs hands that ch-raise? ie how likely is our hand to hold up in a showdown if we were to get it all in?

-What sized pot do we want to aim for here?

-What are the possible mistakes we could make in this hand?

-From all this, what's our ultimate goal for the hand?"

Our hand is likely to be the best hand on the flop.

This is where it can get tricky. Even if we do have the best hand on the flop, there's so many hands he can have with so many outs that will make his hand the best hand. For example, if he has Q 5 suited in spades, he doesn't have anything now but he's over 50% to win against our hand. If he has Q9 he's only a little worse than 50% to win. If he has K3 suited in spades he's just about 50% to win.

Probably the worst mistake we could make is falling in love with our hand on the flop and getting ourselves all in in a tossup situation.

I think the best goal is to not get the pot too big and don't go broke. And try to show it down on the river if we get that far.

I think I check behind here.

There's the potential to lose a very big pot if we screw this up, so I like checking to keep the pot small. I think we want a cheap showdown, not a big pot.

We don't have a lot of info on villain's hand here, but if we c-bet and they do anything other than instafold we'll only get one additional piece of information: that we're in a dangerous spot. Which we can pretty much assume anyway.

Of course, if I'm actually in the hand I probably get a rush of blood to the head and say "Woo, TPTK, bet three quarters of the pot!" - but I'd look back at it afterwards and wonder why I didn't just check

lol, believe me, I've only just looked into this and in the heat of the moment probably still bet it.

I know I only posted this a few hours ago, but we've already got tons of responses and I think we can talk about what the 'correct' answer should be: to check, mostly for reasons already mentioned. This is what's called a BA/WB situation (ie barely ahead/way behind). Similar to wa/wb in that we want to control the pot, but different in other ways.

One reason we're checking behind here is to keep the pot small; we don't want to build a big pot here since any hand that villain is putting in lots of chips with will likely either have us dominated (ie WB), or will be a hand that is drawing to significant outs (ie BA). If we wait until the turn to put a bet in, we a) take a lot of fold equity away from big draws, and b) buy ourselves a lot more equity in the pot.

For example let's use QJs:

On flop:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 37.121% 36.06% 01.06% 357 10.50 { AdJc }
Hand 1: 62.879% 61.82% 01.06% 612 10.50 { QsJs }

On turn:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 59.091% 59.09% 00.00% 26 0.00 { AdJc }
Hand 1: 40.909% 40.91% 00.00% 18 0.00 { QsJs }

Now I'm no LHE guru, but there's a somewhat similar situation in SSHE where the author talks about waiting with TT until the turn to raise since the equity jump from flop to turn is so high. Just something to think about.

Regarding giving a free card, that definitely is a problem, but not as big of a problem as stacking (or building the pot for a stack) with TPTK here. We're essentially giving up a free card in exchange for keeping the pot small here, which is much more important.

Now what happens if we bet:

Villain checks, we bet ~$11, villain raises $35, we are feeling stuck.

For all we know, we could be up against a made hand, a big combo draw like Q♠J♠ or an outright bluff here. Now we have three very ugly looking options: fold what is possibly the best hand in what is now a pretty big pot, call and give him the advantage in the hand, and 3-bet with a hand we could be drawing near-dead with. None too appealing.

I think the default line should be to check behind, and usually bet when checked to on the turn, or call a turn bet if it's non-scary. By checking, we not only control the pot size, but induce bluffs as well. The river is where it might get tricky, but we'd deal with that when we got there by figuring out how likely villain would be to double barrel bluff based on stats etc.

You said it b4 i could Chuck. (and well put)

My reasons for checking would be that this is a coordinated flop being that there are straight, flush, and the almighty straight flush possibilities out on the board. Being that you have TPTK you definatly want to limit your losses on this hand and keep the pot small. It is best to win a small pot rather than lose a big one.

p.s. I'm not much of a numbers guy when it comes to poker on figuring mathematics on making a hand, but my gut would be telling me that there is something fishy here

Normally I agree here Chuck, but with the villian coming in from the BB I disagree. If this is any other position I have a bit of concern, but here I am taking my chances as he could be on anything. If you can take the pot down for ~$7 take the chance. He has to be on a draw to call and if he cane in with 6h7h, which is just as likely as QsJs I take my chances he as he will fire on the turn and we just might be folding the best hand now that he knows the board scared us. If he c/r we can fold, if he calls he will prob check again on the turn and we have bought ourself a free river card as we can now check.

I bet here. I don't hate the check behind, but it doesn't gain you any insight. It's a scary flop, but against the BB, I take my shot with TPTK.

Re: your first post, Gord, we're not folding to a turn bet unless it's on a big scare card, like a king, 8 or Ks/8s etc. Similar to the wa/wb hand with KK on say an A72 flop, we're checking behind with the intention of calling any turn bet and reassessing on the river.

Originally Posted by gord962

He has to be on a draw to call and if he cane in with 6h7h, which is just as likely as QsJs I take my chances he as he will fire on the turn and we just might be folding the best hand now that he knows the board scared us.

Well then why are we betting? We want to induce bluffs with the hands we beat...

A check-raise is much more likely to push us off our hand than a ~3/4 pot bet would on the turn (had we checked behind). As was mentioned we should be calling a good number of the turn cards anyways.

Originally Posted by gord962

If he c/r we can fold, if he calls he will prob check again on the turn and we have bought ourself a free river card as we can now check.

Not really getting you here, Gord.

If he ch/r, we can get pushed off the best hand. QJ/KJ/FDs/straight draws/bluffs are all possibilities - a good aggressive player doesn't need to have much to ch-r here. Also fwiw he's rarely check-calling with any of his hands here - with a made hand he'll ch-r to build the pot, as will he with a draw (also for FE).

Also, why do we want a free river card? We're not drawing or anything...

Pots grow exponentially depending on how much is bet on each street or even whether someone does bet on a street.

ie we bet $7 pf, villain calls, pot is now $15.
We bet $11 on flop, villain raises to $35, we call. Pot is now $85.
Villain bets any significant amount on turn, and we feel too involved with a marginal TP. We're stuck again.

Now my way:

We bet $7 pf, villain calls, pot is now $15.
We check behind on flop.
Villain bets turn for $11, we call. Pot is now $37.
Villain checks riv, we check behind
OR
Villain bets $30 on riv, we decide based on stats how likely it is he's bluffing and call/fold.

Would like more arguments from those who disagree! Debate is always good

Originally Posted by reglardave

I bet here. I don't hate the check behind, but it doesn't gain you any insight. It's a scary flop, but against the BB, I take my shot with TPTK.

yarg!

Why is it that information is so much more valuable to some of you guys than actual value?

You guys who are saying to check are acting like we're on the draw and he already has a made hand. It's the opposite, we have a hand and need to make him pay to draw out. If he has the nuts then so be it. If you don't want to bet on this flop, then why would you bet on the turn or river, or call a bet on the turn or river? It doesn't make sense if you plan to check on the flop then just call a bet by him on the river. We don't really have many outs and we have no draw, but he could easily benefit from free cards while we can't. That would only make sense if we were the one with the draw.

Really I think either checking on the flop or betting is fine, but my personal preference is a more aggressive style and to bet on the flop. For example, say in this same hand we have KK or QQ and the flop comes A 8 2. Some players with a conservative style would probably check here while others with a more aggressive style would bet and I think both are fine plays, but I would usually bet here.

Originally Posted by ChuckTs

Not really getting you here, Gord.

If he ch/r, we can get pushed off the best hand. QJ/KJ/FDs/straight draws/bluffs are all possibilities - a good aggressive player doesn't need to have much to ch-r here. Also fwiw he's rarely check-calling with any of his hands here - with a made hand he'll ch-r to build the pot, as will he with a draw (also for FE).

Also, why do we want a free river card? We're not drawing or anything...

Why do we want a free turn card then???? If he is on the draw we just handed him the hand if he hits!

The reason to get to the river as cheap as possible is because he could have already made his hand and we could be drawing completely dead, but we obv aren't going to fold TPTK just yet. If we control the betting here, we control the pot size. If we bet the flop he will likely check the turn again letting us bet and build the pot for him while we hold the worst hand the whole time. According to WAWB we then call the turn assuming it's a bluff, which is most likely more than our flop bet and we are now worse off than if we would have made the initial bet on the flop.

Well then why are we betting? We want to induce bluffs with the hands we beat...

I have no issues taking this hand down here and now.

we're not folding to a turn bet unless it's on a big scare card, like a king, 8 or Ks/8s etc. Similar to the wa/wb hand with KK on say an A72 flop, we're checking behind with the intention of calling any turn bet and reassessing on the river.

So we call his bet on the turn assuming it's a bluff?? I can't see calling a pot sized bet on the turn as there a ton of cards that could bury us. Any 7, 8, Q, K or any spade could make us a loser, not to mention he could already have us beat.

Originally Posted by Bentheman87

You guys who are saying to check are acting like we're on the draw and he already has a made hand. It's the opposite, we have a hand and need to make him pay to draw out. If he has the nuts then so be it.

Pleeeease don't start with the poker 'sayings'. "we raised pf, so let's continue the aggression!", "if he's got the nuts, then so be it!" etc etc mean NOTHING. Hand ranges and equities DO! (as do bluffing frequencies here).

Originally Posted by Bentheman87

If you don't want to bet on this flop, then why would you bet on the turn or river, or call a bet on the turn or river? It doesn't make sense if you plan to check on the flop then just call a bet by him on the river.

Oh yes, it does Ben, as I already explained:

If we wait until the turn to put a bet in, we a) take a lot of fold equity away from big draws, and b) buy ourselves a lot more equity in the pot.

For example let's use QJs:

On flop:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 37.121% 36.06% 01.06% 357 10.50 { AdJc }
Hand 1: 62.879% 61.82% 01.06% 612 10.50 { QsJs }

On turn:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 59.091% 59.09% 00.00% 26 0.00 { AdJc }
Hand 1: 40.909% 40.91% 00.00% 18 0.00 { QsJs }

Originally Posted by Bentheman87

We don't really have many outs and we have no draw, but he could easily benefit from free cards while we can't.

This is true, but again as I explained, the mistake of building a big pot and getting yourself in tough turn/river spots after doing so is MUCH worse of a mistake than giving one free card in such a small pot.

Originally Posted by Bentheman87

We don't really have many outs and we have no draw, but he could easily benefit from free cards while we can't. That would only make sense if we were the one with the draw.

That's the interesting thing about this though - look at the equity figures in Chuck's post: against a combo draw AJ is actually a dog on the flop.

(If I've got this right...) that effectively reduces AJ to a drawing hand. It's drawing to a blank on the turn so it can have the lead back.

Alright, posting in bold in your quote since multiquoting is such a pain in the ass

Originally Posted by gord962

Why do we want a free turn card then???? If he is on the draw we just handed him the hand if he hits!

We're not going for a free card! We don't need to improve at this point. We're controlling the pot size by denying him a chance to ch-r us, as well as inducing bluffs (or 'value bet' worse hands) on the turn/riv.

The reason to get to the river as cheap as possible is because he could have already made his hand and we could be drawing completely dead

No, that's not the only reason. It's also to induce bluffs/worse hands to bet as mentioned above.

If we bet the flop he will likely check the turn again letting us bet and build the pot for him while we hold the worst hand the whole time.

Let's get this straight - an aggressive thinking player is RARELY check-calling here. What hands will do that!? All he's doing there is opening himself up to be double or triple barreled by us who by the way have position.

According to WAWB we then call the turn assuming it's a bluff, which is most likely more than our flop bet and we are now worse off than if we would have made the initial bet on the flop.

Au contraire, mon frere. Again, we deny him an additional street to bluff on. Put very simply for illustrations sake, a pot could look like this:

pf:$15, flop: $45, turn: $135, riv:$405

Then if one street is checked, it'll only be $135. Pots grow exponentially, and checking behind is a perfect way to control the pot by denying one betting round to your opponent.

I have no issues taking this hand down here and now.

I realize, and that's the issue. Similar to the wa/wb example, everybody says bet because they want to take it down now in fear of having to face bets on later streets. Sacrificing value for info is pretty weak tight imo.

So we call his bet on the turn assuming it's a bluff?? I can't see calling a pot sized bet on the turn as there a ton of cards that could bury us. Any 7, 8, Q, K or any spade could make us a loser, not to mention he could already have us beat.

True, but he won't necessarily bet all the time either since the board will be equally scary for him unless he's hit it. We won't always be calling turn bets, we'll sometimes be doing them ourselves too.

Originally Posted by OzExorcist

that effectively reduces AJ to a drawing hand. It's drawing to a blank on the turn so it can have the lead back.

Good point; we're basically drawing for a non-scare card. This is only true on the flop though...

Originally Posted by gord962

...we have bought ourself a free river card as we can now check.

On the turn (to riv), we're not drawing to anything really (because if we've already seen a non-scare card we can now bet as our equity has practically flipped), and our hand can now be considered a 'made hand'. Villain, however, is.

If he's got a combo draw his equity is now much worse, and betting becomes a much clearer decision.

Heads up, with a flop this draw laden, I just dislike giving a free card at a point where I gotta believe I have the best of it right now.

If villain isn't on an already made hamd, this flop is at least as scary to him, so why not make a stab at a perceived advantage. If you get a big reraise, then fold. If you get a flat call, and the turn comes a further scare card, slow down.

It's a bear of a hand to play, but leading out with TPTK still seems the best approach to me against a random hand.

Originally Posted by reglardave

Heads up, with a flop this draw laden, I just dislike giving a free card at a point where I gotta believe I have the best of it right now.

But that's the thing - look at the equity figures: AJ doesn't necessarily have the best of it.

Yea but Chuck, remember that the opponent could have anything here. How do you know he has a pair and a draw combo? He might have only a gutshot straight draw, he might have one pair and no draw like Jack 7, he might have just a small flush draw like 5 6 suited, he might have just a regular draw in which case we are well over 50% to win. I think checking here is too passive and defensive, he could have man hands that we have beat, he could have many hands that could outdraw us, he could have us beat on the flop. But I think the greatest probability is he has a hand that we have beat and his equity in the hand is bad. So just bet pot or 3/4 the pot and see what happens on the turn.

In other words, it's hard to really put him on a hand at this point. He was in the BB calling a preflop raise from a player in late position (he knew you were raising from the CO so you could be raising with a marginal hand), so his calling requirements in this situation are lowered. And he checked so we don't know yet if it means strength or a draw or if he has nothing. But I'd say it's MOST likely that he has something that we have crushed, and the next most likely possibility is he has a draw or a pair/draw combo, and the least likely possibility is he has a set or straight or overpair. So that's why we need to bet, to charge all the regular draws and the hands that we are beating.

He's a good, thinking player, ben. He doesn't call OOP with 56s or J7o.

And no, a combo draw isn't the only hand in his range. All pocket pairs, some middle-higher suited connectors and other big cards are.

We're up against:

Hands we crush (22, 77, AT etc) against which we don't mind giving a free card. They'll turn their hands into bluffs which is exactly what we want.

Hands we are crushed by (straights, sets, two pair etc). We obviously want to keep the pot as small as possible vs these hands.

Hands we're barely ahead of (combo draws). These are the hands we want to give exactly one free card to, and if the turn's safe, then we bet since our equity changes from barely ahead to well ahead.

Hope that helps.

EDIT: we're also well ahead of marginal draws like OESDs or FDs, both of which we sacrifice some value by not betting, but also save ourselves from getting check-raised out of the pot. We can basically group this with the big draws, but this group is where we lose the most sklansky bucks by checking. This is the big downside to checking, but even so it still greatly outweighs the downsides of betting.

You forgot one group of hands Chuck, the regular straight or flush draws that are less than 40% to win against us. These hands we don't want to give a free card to. I agree with you though about the draw/pair combo. If he turned over and showed us bottom pair plus a flush draw then yeah, it would make sense to check.

The hard thing is assigning a probability to each group of possible hands he could hold. Without doing any math or anything though I'd say the probability is greatest that he has either a hand that is crushed by us OR a regular draw. And the lower probability is he has either a hand that already has us beat, or a draw/pair combo that is over or about 50% to win against us.

Originally Posted by Bentheman87

You forgot one group of hands Chuck, the regular straight or flush draws that are less than 40% to win against us. These hands we don't want to give a free card to. I agree with you though about the draw/pair combo. If he turned over and showed us bottom pair plus a flush draw then yeah, it would make sense to check.

^see the edit in the last post; i did forget that group, and it is important as it's the only one we're making a critical mistake in by checking.

Originally Posted by Bentheman87

The hard thing is assigning a probability to each group of possible hands he could hold. Without doing any math or anything though I'd say the probability is greatest that he has either a hand that is crushed by us OR a regular draw. And the lower probability is he has either a hand that already has us beat, or a draw/pair combo that is over or about 50% to win against us.

Also true, but not really necessary.

Just look at the number of groups - three that favour a check, and one that favours a bet. Not only that but there will most probably actually be fewer hands in the OESD/FD group.

re: OESDs, villain is probably 3-betting AQ preflop, so that's not very probable. A 9 for the straight draw is, but still not very likely since villain rarely calls with small cards like that OOP. The only hands we're really worried about here are pairs+OESDs like QJ, QT, 89 etc, but our equity against those hands is actually closer to combo draws than to naked straight draws. So again, checking there is best.

re: FDs, villain could very well have some, but again they're not all that probable. Any flush draw is most probably going to connect with the board in some way since he's rarely calling OOP with 56s and similar hands, so he's gaining additional outs, thus making it closer to a combo draw again, and further supporting the case for checking.

Well, you've changed my mind, if no one else's, Chuck. What our line here if he fires on the turn and river with no further scare cards? We're obviously calling the turn (or betting if he checks again), but if he pots it on the river, we're still facing a tough decision.

That's just about the worst thing that can happen, and we would basically have to assume that we're beat at that point barring some very convincing stats on the guy.

I'm not sure a good player will double barrel very often here though (assuming we're a 'good' player too) since our check will set off some bells in his head.

There's two groups where we're betting off betting and two where we're better off checking, not three groups where we're better off checking. And here's another question to think about. If he really did have a hand in the "hands that have us crushed" group like a set or two pair, would he really check here on such a draw heavy board? If he's a decent player he wouldn't slowplay here he would lead out with a bet to try to take the pot. And with a big draw or a pair and a flush draw, he knows he's not that big of a favorite over one pair like AJ, so wouldn't he try to bet? You already said he's an aggressive thinking player, and a smart player wouldn't even try to slowplay a set here. He might check with a straight though... So since we know he checked I think it's more likely he has just one pair and no draw or nothing.

It's the draw/nothing hands that we should be worried about check-raising us off the best hand here. If he holds something like KJ (A hand we're ahead of but with TP and gut-shot) and he check-raises our flop bet we lose value by folding the best hand.

Originally Posted by Bentheman87

There's two groups where we're betting off betting and two where we're better off checking, not three groups where we're better off checking.

Crushing - check to induce bluffs

Crushed by - check to save value

Well ahead vs - bet to protect

Barely ahead - This is debatable, but as a part of his range, we want to check here.

If we knew we were up against a hand we were barely a favourite over, technically in a cash game we would take that edge. But what combo hands are we looking at? QJs for one (we're actually a significant dog against this - ~63/37), KJs for another (again, we're a dog - ~55/45), etc etc. The only ones where we're actually barely ahead (~55/45 or 60/40 etc) are the QT/QJ type hands.

So overall we're actually probably a dog vs the combo draws - I could draw up some numbers via Pokerstove if you wish.

Originally Posted by Bentheman87

And here's another question to think about. If he really did have a hand in the "hands that have us crushed" group like a set or two pair, would he really check here on such a draw heavy board? If he's a decent player he wouldn't slowplay here he would lead out with a bet to try to take the pot. And with a big draw or a pair and a flush draw, he knows he's not that big of a favorite over one pair like AJ, so wouldn't he try to bet? You already said he's an aggressive thinking player, and a smart player wouldn't even try to slowplay a set here. He might check with a straight though... So since we know he checked I think it's more likely he has just one pair and no draw or nothing.

Smart players rarely donk, though it's certainly possible if he's trying to bet-push (ie with a set).

Most likely though is that he's going for a check-raise, not trying to slowplay. We're betting this flop a lot of the time with other hands in our range, and he's expecting that.

First group is hands that we are beating, for instance 10 K. You say check to induce a bluff but he has 9 outs to beat us. So we're better off betting against this group of hands.

Second group is the regular open ended straight or flush draws and we're better off betting against these.

Third group is the hands that are beating us like a set or two pair or straight. So we're better off checking against these.

Fourth group is the combo draws that we are better off checking against.

This is a mistake that so many people make, differentiating between "made" hands and "drawing" hands. It's these people who talk about how AK is just A high (when with 5 cards to come depending on the suits could be a favorite against some pocket pairs). All that matters is our percentage to win, and how that will change on the next card. Chuck did an excellent analysis of this. It doesn't matter whether it's us or our opponent drawing, remember the cards are just tools for representing probabilities. We have a certain percentage to win, and the turn will change this probability, and we know the odds of the probability changing to each number (well we can calculate it, and it depends on the hand of our opponent).

The other big mistake people are making is the fact that it was said this is a good thinking player. A player like this will basically put us on this kind of hand when we bet, and may consider coming over the top unless of course he thinks we're good enough to be trying to induce him into doing that with a strong hand (straight with flush draw or something). If we bet a reasonable amount, we fold out a straight draw (mainly because we want to take away odds when we bet, and if we do the thinking player will fold, especially since even if he hits 1 or 2 of his outs, depending on whether he's on a gut shot or open-ended draw will also put a flush on the board.

The only hand I can see calling us here is just a plain flush draw. If it's the nut flush draw with A-rag we are in good shape, because an A is not an out for him. But for example say K5s here. He is ahead of us. and if he has a decent hand, which since he's a thinking player calling OOP we have to assume he does, what could he realistically have that we have beat and would call us on this flop? AKs has us beat, AQs has us crushed. Even KJs (which would probably be a raise, not a call) has us beat despite us having him dominated.

I can honestly not think of a hand that:
1. A thinking player would call a raise with from the BB
2. Would check-call this flop
3. We have beat

He could be calling with low suited connectors or a low to mid PP, in which case he folds to our bet and isn't likely to catch up if we let him draw.

But the big idea here that I think needs to be more understood is that it doesn't matter who has the better poker hand on the flop. It's easily seen here how it can be TPTK vs. A high and the A high has TPTK dominated (not in a poker sense, just is a heavy favorite to win). Your current 5-card poker hand means nothing on the flop, it's your odds of making the best 5-card poker hand by the river. So although there are about a million draws out there, there is nothing a thinking player would be playing right now that we would benefit from betting here after his check.

Chuck you have changed my mind!

I am convinced that the correct play would be to check.

Very interesting indeed.

If the board were Jh 10h 2c, I would bet out strong to protect against the draw. However since our opponent could already have us nearly drawing dead, I would opt for the check, and call down lest some fishy draw completely card shows up.

Originally Posted by ChuckTs

This is based on a pretty important concept involving c-betting and the relative strength of your hand. I'm curious what type of responses we'll get here.

The hand in question:

6-max 200nl, 100BB effective stacks.

Hero opens for $7 from the CO with A♣J♥ This must be a raise because villain has to call here, not just check
Folds to an aggressive, thinking regular in the BB who calls. We must assume villain is no dummy, and is either planning on a play like a bluff, or has something real.

Flop comes J♦10♠9♠

Villain checks. Would love to know how long this took. And what read we might get (if any) at this point.

What's our action (and plan) for the hand and why? With the pot assumably in the $15-17 range, my first thought was a $10-12 feeler bet. Even after reading all the replies, and agreeing that the check behind for a free turn card is not such a terrible option, it opens the door awfully wide for villain to steal the turn regardless of what turns. Villain has the 'right of first refusal' here, which is a strong option for him should we check the flop. I still like my 'feeler bet'.

How do stack sizes affect our decision here?

I think this hand represents both a challenge and an opportunity. As I read it both are about even coming into this hand, so a tread carefully approach here is necessary. Bets are starting to eat into that 100bb threshold, where below that either timidness or aggressiveness will impact us greatly.

Originally Posted by gord962

Normally I agree here Chuck, but with the villian coming in from the BB I disagree. If this is any other position I have a bit of concern, but here I am taking my chances as he could be on anything. If you can take the pot down for ~$7 take the chance. He has to be on a draw to call and if he cane in with 6h7h, which is just as likely as QsJs I take my chances he as he will fire on the turn and we just might be folding the best hand now that he knows the board scared us. If he c/r we can fold, if he calls he will prob check again on the turn and we have bought ourself a free river card as we can now check.

Since villain was described as an aggressive, thinking, normal player (discounting the trickiness factor), and he was the BB (open ranged), even though he called, I still like my feeler bet. Villain HAS to put the very real possibility for us holding KQx in his assessment of our range. It would be a great explanation for our PF CO raise.

Let me add here that IMHO this is one of those situations where we would probably not play it the same every time, nor would we want to play it the same every time, even if ALL the other situations were exactly the same.

Very true, dj - there are no alwayses (new word! ) in poker.

Similar to saying 'don't open limp in 6-max', this isn't a concrete thing and can always be deviated from. This is, however the play that will probably give you the highest return on average.

OK so now how about the stack size question? How does this problem change if we have 20BB?

With 20BBs I'm looking to get all of our stack in with TPTK. The preflop pot is 7.5BBs, so it's big (in comparison to our stack which is now 16.5BB). Raise the flop. All-in on turn.

I agree, with 20bb, I too would be looking for the double up. I could easily shove on the flop. I don't want villain to see another card when I'm sitting TPTK. Especially when I know the villain is an aggressive, thinking normal player. His thinking could be that he sees us as the shortstack panic bet, and calls. Fine, but in this case I'd be ok with him folding. What I don't want to happen is me pushing, and him forcing me all in, and having to even deal with that ugly decision. So I would tend to shove up front on the flop, and put him in that ugly spot.

Since you didn't tell us what type of player villain might think you are, I will assume that his read would be similar to what my impression is. Solid, not prone to the stupid 'move'. In which case even if he held the ignorant end of the straight, he could seriously consider mucking. If it were me playing, his read would be 'silly, prone to the stupid gene' and he would call in a heartbeat!

Well at this point I think it's obvious we should be much more inclined to betting and probably stacking as well.

The issue now changes from the mistake of losing 100BB with AJ on this flop vs the mistake of giving a free card to the (not so bad) mistake of losing 20BB with AJ on this flop vs the mistake of giving the free card, and the latter is much bigger of a mistake.