In my opinion calling the turn is only ok if the guy had more behind him. In this situation you can really only fold or shove allin. You have a lot of outs and need to get the rest in to give you the right odds. Plus, there is always the small chance he folds (he could be bluffing with the best hand) and therefore you dont need to hit. Posted by CraigSG1
What do you mean by this?
As said earlier in the thread, we need equity of 39% if we get it all-in with no fold equity or 33% to just call.
I think it's optimistic to think we'll get villain to fold after he's put this much in. It might happen very occasionally (low single figure percentage, if that) but it's not something we should consider, in my opinion.
In Response to Re: should i have just checked the river and was it ok calling the turn? : What do you mean by this? As said earlier in the thread, we need equity of 39% if we get it all-in with no fold equity or 33% to just call. I think it's optimistic to think we'll get villain to fold after he's put this much in. It might happen very occasionally (low single figure percentage, if that) but it's not something we should consider, in my opinion. Posted by BorinLoner
I probably didn't get it right stating it like that but my point was if where going to play the hand I don't think we can just call when he has so little left. And I DO think you have to consider the small chance he folds as it is possible at this level (I've seen it often) although it is not foremost in my thinking. After all, the guy did eventually fold the river.
I meant to add too that calling leaves us with a very awkward situation if we miss. Do we bet knowing we are giving good odds to most hands or check and feel foolish when the guy checks behind showing a missed flush draw or air that's beating us. It's the river decision that is in my thinking when see how little the guy has left behind which is why i don't think we can just call. Allin or fold are the only options. Which one is the best i admit I struggle to work out to the right % in the heat of the moment and I'm open to any help.
coz ya oop and if u hit are u gonna get paid on the river if u donk lead shove i prefer to shove all in on the turn altho the guy is pot commited to the hand with the raise i think we have to go with it with the amount of outs we have so i prefer the shove like i said if we hit the river are we gonna get paid ? Posted by IDONKCALLU
I'm pretty sure raising turn is -EV. So I wouldn't do it. If you think calling isn't profitable you should fold imo
Just to talk about CraigSG1's post: I have seen players fold for this much more on the turn many times. If I said thirty or forty times, that would seem about right. However I've played tens of thousands of hands, so those occasions occur probably less than 1% of the time.
We don't need to care about the weird plays we've seen before. Even if you think unknown players fold to a shove here one in fifty times, it's still not a significant factor. The fact that he folded the river is neither here nor there as he may have simply been holding a missed draw himself, which would have been dominating us on the turn and would not have folded.
Even if the hero had shoved the turn and, on this occasion, the villain had folded, it still would not be a justification for shoving. We have to make our decision in view of long-term expected results and in the long-term we should not expect our opponents to fold here often enough.
Grantorino hits the nail on the head. This is all about which situation is more +EV (or which may be -EV).
The fact that our opponent has some money back doesn't mean we have to stick him in. We're not playing a tournament so we don't need to win all of the chips. We only have to make the decision that gives the best expected return and, if you agree that he's unlikely to fold for the rest, we have a choice of paying less money for 33% odds or paying more money for 39% odds. That makes the better decision clear, I think.
Just to talk about CraigSG1's post: I have seen players fold for this much more on the turn many times. If I said thirty or forty times, that would seem about right. However I've played tens of thousands of hands, so those occasions occur probably less than 1% of the time. We don't need to care about the weird plays we've seen before. Even if you think unknown players fold to a shove here one in fifty times, it's still not a significant factor. The fact that he folded the river is neither here nor there as he may have simply been holding a missed draw himself, which would have been dominating us on the turn and would not have folded. Even if the hero had shoved the turn and, on this occasion, the villain had folded, it still would not be a justification for shoving. We have to make our decision in view of long-term expected results and in the long-term we should not expect our opponents to fold here often enough. Grantorino hits the nail on the head. This is all about which situation is more +EV (or which may be -EV). The fact that our opponent has some money back doesn't mean we have to stick him in. We're not playing a tournament so we don't need to win all of the chips. We only have to make the decision that gives the best expected return and, if you agree that he's unlikely to fold for the rest, we have a choice of paying less money for 33% odds or paying more money for 39% odds. That makes the better decision clear, I think. Posted by BorinLoner
Ok, i see what you are saying and your right, thats probably the MTT player in me in that thinking. I just dont like the idea of calling leaving him have so little left and leaving us with a tricky river decision if we miss. I think it could leave us exploitable if say we call that raise, miss the draw and he ships for his remaining chips and we have to fold. It then becomes obvious we where on a draw and shows how we play such a hand.
I personally fold the turn unless he has a decent amout behind him.
In Response to Re: should i have just checked the river and was it ok calling the turn? : Ok, i see what you are saying and your right, thats probably the MTT player in me in that thinking. I just dont like the idea of calling leaving him have so little left and leaving us with a tricky river decision if we miss. I think it could leave us exploitable if say we call that raise, miss the draw and he ships for his remaining chips and we have to fold. It then becomes obvious we where on a draw and shows how we play such a hand. I personally fold the turn unless he has a decent amout behind him. Posted by CraigSG1
It wouldn't make the play any better if it was an MTT, shoving turn is just knowingly getting your money/chips in bad and hoping you suck out
Plus if we miss our river decision is very simple, we fold.
Like saying I call the flop bet with the right price and then folding turn is bad because we are no not getting the right price.
If someone is laying you the right price to call, no matter what you or they have behind and you have no fe then the correct thing to do is call.
Yeah, my error: I shouldn't really have mentioned "We're not playing a tournament..." All I meant by that was that the shove or fold idea wasn't relevant in cash. We don't need to worry about winning all the chips or protecting our stack's fold equity, just making the best EV decision.
Comments
As said earlier in the thread, we need equity of 39% if we get it all-in with no fold equity or 33% to just call.
I think it's optimistic to think we'll get villain to fold after he's put this much in. It might happen very occasionally (low single figure percentage, if that) but it's not something we should consider, in my opinion.
Just to talk about CraigSG1's post: I have seen players fold for this much more on the turn many times. If I said thirty or forty times, that would seem about right. However I've played tens of thousands of hands, so those occasions occur probably less than 1% of the time.
We don't need to care about the weird plays we've seen before. Even if you think unknown players fold to a shove here one in fifty times, it's still not a significant factor. The fact that he folded the river is neither here nor there as he may have simply been holding a missed draw himself, which would have been dominating us on the turn and would not have folded.
Even if the hero had shoved the turn and, on this occasion, the villain had folded, it still would not be a justification for shoving. We have to make our decision in view of long-term expected results and in the long-term we should not expect our opponents to fold here often enough.
Grantorino hits the nail on the head. This is all about which situation is more +EV (or which may be -EV).
The fact that our opponent has some money back doesn't mean we have to stick him in. We're not playing a tournament so we don't need to win all of the chips. We only have to make the decision that gives the best expected return and, if you agree that he's unlikely to fold for the rest, we have a choice of paying less money for 33% odds or paying more money for 39% odds. That makes the better decision clear, I think.
we can call, hit and still get paid because of SPR
we have no FE
raising turn is -EV
Plus if we miss our river decision is very simple, we fold.
Like saying I call the flop bet with the right price and then folding turn is bad because we are no not getting the right price.
If someone is laying you the right price to call, no matter what you or they have behind and you have no fe then the correct thing to do is call.