98sooooted hand

[TightWad]

My opponent here is pretty tight and very straightforward. I've played with him a few times since moving up to 5-10, and I have him pretty much pegged as tight-aggressive-unimaginative.

Party Poker 5/10 Hold'em (6 handed)

Preflop: TW is CO with , .
2 folds, TW raises, Button 3-bets, 2 folds, TW calls.

Flop: (7.40 SB) , , (2 players)
TW checks, Button bets, TW raises, Button calls.

Turn: (5.70 BB) (2 players)
TW bets, Button raises, TW calls.

River: (9.70 BB) (2 players)
TW bets, Button calls.

Final Pot: 11.70 BB

Results in white below:
TW has 8c 9c (two pair, nines and eights).
Button has Ah Ks (one pair, kings).
Outcome: TW wins 11.70 BB.

Initially, I was pretty satisfied with how I played the hand. When he calls my check-raise and then raises the turn, I can peg him nearly 100% on AK, and my pot odds are pretty much exact to call in hopes of hitting my 5-outer, with a small overlay considering that I figure on making 1 more big bet if I hit. Now granted, my odds go way down if there's a significant chance he holds a hand like KQ or a set, but I was really pretty confident that he had the hand he did.

My main question is this; as I said, I had the odds to call his turn raise and hope to improve...but why was I betting the turn to begin with? Check-folding seems weak, but I really think it's the line I should've taken. I suppose there's some chance he folds something like JJ or TT (though I'm not even sure he would've 3-bet TT)...but was that bet just spewing? I really can't put him on a hand like AJ or AT, no way he 3-bets with those.

I guess the point I'm making is that my turn call was correct as far as pot odds, but only because I made it correct by making a bad lead-out bet to begin with...does that sounds about right?

Secondary question : does anyone go for a check-raise on the river (assuming that for some reason you made it that far ) or do you think leading out is best?

-TW

[EscapePlan9]

[TightWad]

But see, that's the problem. When that king hits the turn, I really have trouble putting him on any hand that I beat, and if I check, I won't have the odds to call and hope to improve. If I can definitely get off a river check-raise, than yes I just barely have enough implied odds to call (6.7 BB in the pot after his bet, 2 more on the river)...but if he does have something like JJ, he may very well check behind on the river, and if I check the turn, his bet could easily mean JJ just as well as it could AK. So I still think I should probably have check-folded.

I suppose it's possible that I'm giving him too narrow a 3-bet range, but I really don't think so. Particularly because I had really started the session out playing super tight, not really stealing or playing weak hands at all...so it's not like I had the sort of mizorly image that would provoke a 3-bet from a hand like AJ or AT.

-TW

[EscapePlan9]

I don't like the idea of betting so that when he raises you you'll have the effective odds to continue. I know checking wouldn't give you the information you need to put him on AK. There's absolutely zero hands you're ahead of here (against mr TAG), but you're right, if he has JJ, he might have a tough time calling this down. So you have fold equity if he holds JJ, but not if he holds AA, KK, QQ, AKo/s, AQs, KQs. In other words, I don't think you have enough fold equity. Perhaps check-folding would be best on the turn then, although I think there's a case to be made for continuing due to the implied odds.

His turn raise says he doesn't merely have JJ, so yes, C/R that river the way it's been played.

[Ichoi]

He also played that exactly the way I'd expect someone to play QQ. (Not counting the river obviously)

[MecosKing]

Dood:

I dont mind the call on the river. Yeah he miggt have AK and that means you have sodimized him right n proper the way the tight/unimaginatives deserve. HOwever, this is one of those situations where i think you have to ask yourself-- could i muckit if he three bets me? He could have QQ, KK or even 88 (unlikely), and have been waiting to raise your assup on the turn anyways, in which case you will get 3 bet on the river, and lose 3 BB instead of one. So, if you lose, you lose 2 BB, and if you win, you will win one extra BB. Now momma always tol' me i wudnt too good wit numburrs but the fact that you stand to lose 2 and gain only one should be factored into your consideration. And trust me, i have thought i sucked out with bookenders on the river and CRed, been three bet, and been pist. bim just realize the whole front of the mhouse an hsee me, so i fold.ut

[majakovskij]

[EscapePlan9]

I'm not saying to always C/R when you improve on the river. I almost never C/R the river, in fact. I'm so worried about it being checked behind. Here TW said he was near certain villain held AK. That river is not a scare card whatsoever, so there's no reason villain will not bet that river with TPTK after you slowed down on the turn. This is one of the few cases where I think C/R the river is optimal.

TW: " I can peg him nearly 100% on AK"

If TW was less confident tighty held exactly AK, I'd bet-call the river instead. This is a matter of applying the Fundamental Theorm of Poker: you gain money everytime you play optimally if you could see your opponent's hand. With (nearly) 100% confidence, that's the same as seeing your opponent's hand. And with his tight-unimaginative image, he will more likely than not bet that river.

The scenario Barry mentions is completely different. It was not obvious your opponent held something like AK since you did not bet or raise anywhere with QT, and the river card paired the board - an obvious scare card.

And TW mentioned his image was nothing out of line.

[majakovskij]

[EscapePlan9]

(duplicate deleted)

(p.s. is there a way a flat out delete your posts?)

[EscapePlan9]