A line that I don't think I have almost ever seen from a villain

[Silverthunder]

Cake Poker No-Limit Hold'em, $0.50 BB (6 handed) - Cake-Poker Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com

MP ($37.55)
Hero (CO) ($47.85)
Button ($93.50)
SB ($53.95)
BB ($42)
UTG ($21.65)

Preflop: Hero is CO with K:diamond:, K:spade:
2 folds, Hero bets $2, 1 fold, SB calls $1.75, 1 fold

Flop: ($4.50) 3:heart:, 8:diamond:, 6:diamond: (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $3.15, SB raises to $9, Hero calls $5.85

Turn: ($22.50) 6:club: (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $14, SB raises to $42.95 (All-In), Hero folds

Total pot: $50.50

Don't think that I have almost ever seen this line from a villain before. c/r, c/r- he has gotta have the nuts. Do you think he can ever have an overpair?

He was playing tight, definitely.

[podbelski]

Looks like he had flopped a set, no less than that

[Silverthunder]

ON the flop, I was hoping that he was on a draw but I dont think a lot of the players at these stakes c/r a draw often. I don't really think a c/r out of pos on a draw is a great move OOP because these villains call you.

[zomfgwtfbbq]

I think after the C/R on the flop, and the SB's check on the turn, maybe you could check behind and call a bet on the river. Your hand didn't really improve but it really is unlikely villain has 66 since a 2nd 6 hit, so that rules out one set. However...

Your hand does have pretty good SD value.
If you had any prior reads on the villain it would be good.

It really looks like a set from it, or he can be bluffing with air.

[Silverthunder]

Originally Posted by zomfgwtfbbq

I think after the C/R on the flop, and the SB's check on the turn, maybe you could check behind and call a bet on the river. Your hand didn't really improve but it really is unlikely villain has 66 since a 2nd 6 hit, so that rules out one set. However...

Your hand does have pretty good SD value.
If you had any prior reads on the villain it would be good.

It really looks like a set from it, or he can be bluffing with air.

it is just that it really looked like a draw that didn't hit so he checks. I wanted to get some value & no free card for villain.

I think you are right, though. Check behind because c/r is not that common with a draw at these stakes.

[given1982]

Checking behind the turn is results oriented and misses a lot of value. I like a small 3bet and call a shove on the flop.

[nawhead]

I would choose to side on showdown in this hand if you think villain was playing super nitty and doing those retarded FU lines. Call flop c/r, check behind, call river bet even rivered flush because there are plenty of overpairs to you on the board.

We hope we're good enough on river, but villains can surprise us because maybe we've not considered something about what he thinks of our range there.

If he's reacting to you, more considerations can be made for getting it in on flop. Or just getting it in on turn.

Sometimes ppl switch it up at times, not often but especially decent players who don't want to seem too predictable.

But trying to protect our hand on turn isn't the right way to think. Just think value (either by betting,raising, or even check-calling). Or bluff. A valubet with such a strong hand that becomes a bet/fold is a slippery slope. And unless we're a superhuman online reader of hands, it's just going to make every decision so much harder once we start playing like that (oh i know this so well...).

I'd expect tighter guys to fold or raise there anyway, usually raising. With their entire range of whatever they c/r'd the flop and are now checking the turn with. So you need to call turn if you bet for value. Or just don't bet.

So I kind of rambled here. In summary, if we think we're going to make some wierd mistake like bet/folding with the best hand because we're so confused now, we have the option of checking behind and just making a firm committment of calling the river for value.

The criteria is to have a plan. Betting the turn "to protect our hand" isn't really a plan. It's just an unformed idea.

Given's smallish 3bet/stackoff on flop is also good. Kind of a more gambling style than how I normally play (I rarely stackoff on the flop, so it just doesn't seem right to narrow my range to just big hands when I take this line, but maybe it's more necessary at higher limits where people aren't so bad about pot odds or passive deeper into the streets... and I digress), but it simplifies our decision also.

[Silverthunder]

Originally Posted by given1982

Checking behind the turn is results oriented and misses a lot of value. I like a small 3bet and call a shove on the flop.

I like this. This guy should have a lot of overpairs in his range due to the 3 bet preflop OOP. We would love to stack off to QQ/KK/AA range.
edit- actually, those hand are not in his range, don't know what I am talking about- ignore previous lines

I think that the main reason that we can't check behind the turn is because of the flush draw. Besides at like 4NL, I don't think that I have like ever seen this line.

[nawhead]

Originally Posted by Silverthunder

I like this. This guy should have a lot of overpairs in his range due to the 3 bet preflop OOP. We would love to stack off to QQ/KK/AA range.

I think that the main reason that we can't check behind the turn is because of the flush draw. Besides at like 4NL, I don't think that I have like ever seen this line.

If you think this line fits into your overall game well, that's fine. It's a good line in a vacuum I think. But just choosing a "solution" for a particular situation regardless of villain seems suboptimal, so why do we even bother giving reads at all if we think there's one best solution?

The flush draw seems like a secondary consideration vs this villain anyway if your read on how he's been playing is correct. Unless he thinks you're expoitable like cbetting too much and then folding later to more aggression it's more likely a made hand in his range, and possibly something c/r'ing to protect against overcards.

But we don't know if he is making a play on us (or making an informational/protection raise) if we just dump the chips in on the flop. Sure we'll get action if he is making a move with a draw, but if he does have it, or even if he doesn't, we basically let him play perfectly against us.

Even tho the "get it in on the flop" with big hands on drawy boards is a popular line, it isn't always the best for value against some villains. It's almost more like a defensive stance to protect us from making mistakes later on in the hand (like bet/folding the best hand).

Playing against tighter guys, I think we need to take more suboptimal lines at times because they're pretty nitty about stacking off and our range just isn't that great against them anyway once the money starts going in.

Sure, this is results-oriented thinking, and yes I think it's right to think like this as far as what type of action we give specific players. I think phrases like "checking behind turn is results oriented" doesn't say anything anyway. If putting more money in against a specific player's range results in us losing money in the long run, we should tend to put in less money whenever we're in pots with them. Results-oriented thinking, right?

[Silverthunder]

after seeing my error in my previous post (must have had this confused with another hand), I don't see how we can possibly stack off against the villain on the flop. WE need to see how later streets go. A big part of the calling range from the button for a tight player is a pocket pair.

Even if he does have something like QQ, he can't think that he can get 2 streets of c/r value from JJ/TT/99.

He could have something like 68s, though that would be a little bit odd given preflop, but that would actually make some sense given the post flop play. He check raises to protect his hand b/c 2 pair is vulnerable, then he turns the nuts & he is so far ahead that he feels he can c/r to maximize value, hoping to get called by KK/AA/another set. The reason he c/r instead of call would be to hope to get value out of a draw if I don't believe him.