Poker Forum

I dont think anyone checks qq behind on this flop to be honest so think you gotta take this outta his range, im hungover yeh we gotta b good 33% time not 50, im being hungover retarded. we also cant assume he auto checks back sets so i think he doesnt always play a set this way so that makes these hands even less likely i.e just cos he can have 88 99 44 doesnt mean he will take this line with it all the time, personally I think i bet a set on this flop more often than not although I understand its not a bad spot for a check back and alot of people will. removing qq since noone plays it tht way and if you could also add in the fact that sets arent always played this way I think the math becomes alot closer

yeh i agree with alot of what your saying, its not fair to assume all flushdraws always play out the same cos ofc they dont. I asked a bunch of good regs and had mixed feelings on it. i showed my backer (elio fox) and yeh tht is a my backer is elio fox brag loolz and he said as played fold but bet fold river is better hahahah but my mate said he asked tjbentham and he says call so make of it what you will lool i think people can easy check back all thier flush draw range on flop so guess we disagree there but cheers for the feedback, nice to hear anther persons perspectve on things even if i dont neccesarily agree with them

I don't think we can assume that he is a drooler. We looked up his stats that tells us that he' at least a decent player. However he might assume that our hero is kind of weak, and with the overwhelming display of strength on the turn, we have to explain why he just calls. If he has a set or a straight, he would have no reason not to get it in, because a call may price the small blind in to call with a draw. However if he has a draw himself, then implied odds would be a very reasonable motivation for calling, and even more so if he has a chance of keeping the small blind in the hand.

I'm sorry. I just don't see how he can get to the river with a value hand that is worse than ours, and I don't see a single hand that he can still be holding that has so little show down value that he would have to pull a big bluff. Even if he had a set, how can he pot bet if we thinks there is a chance that he may be betting into a straight? Or to put it in other words, if HE had posted this hand and we could see his set, would we then advise him to take the line he chose?

With regards to the turn raise, I don't especially hate it. I'm not sure if I would have thought of doing it myself. As my first answer indicates I would be unlikely to get to the turn in the first place without having taken the lead on the flop myself. However the same argument applies: Given the board texture and your relative position, your opponents have to give you a lot of credit for actually having what you are representing, so there should be a lot of fold equity, provided that you can convince them that you are raising either because you made the hand on the turn or because you missed a check/raise opportunity on the flop. The problem is of course that it's a bit harder to get credit for a set on the turn, because it would be fairly common to lead out with such a hand on the flop, so in some people's eyes you are repping a lot weaker than you intend, and that puts draws into your perceived range, which makes it so much more disturbing that he pulls out the big gun on the river, now that every conceivable draw came in.

thx alot for all the feedback on this hand, looking back on it I wish i'd just bet flop haha