Defense against the turn semi-bluff raise

I'm speaking from a limit perspective. I'll give an example just off the top of my head...

You raise JJ in EP and get a couple callers.

Flop 9d4s2c, you bet and get a caller, other folds. Turn is a 6s putting 2 spades on board, you bet and are raised by an aggressive player.

What line do you guys typically like taking here? How does it vary depending on being in/out of position? What if instead of an undercard, we get a moderately scary overcard like Qs?

I'm torn between calling down and 3 betting. I like calling down because:

a) I get 3 big bets (typically) out of the aggressive player when they miss (since they'll often bluff the river).
b) I'll lose less when they did slowplay a monster like a set, which is also the case here often.
c) I'll lose less when their draw actually hits (this one I'm iffy on, since I'm often at least a 2:1 favourite on the turn, so raising is going to be better...IF I'm ahead).

If I 3 bet:
a) I make them pay for their draw.
b) I'm hoping that by continuing to be aggressive I may slow them down a bit with their bluff raises (which again, this is a debatable meta-game reason).

What I hate about 3 betting, is that when they call the turn I'm often going to be making that thin river value bet which typically will result in either:

a) Folding their missed draw
b) raising when they hit their draw, (especially if it's a non obvious backdoor draw).
c) Occaisionally calling (if they're bad) when they make some sort of weak pair I beat.

So basically, I'm still getting 3 big bets when they miss, but instead of losing 3, I'm now losing 5 (because I'm not folding the river in a biggish pot against an aggressive player).

I still think the passive line is better from a "lose less when behind line", but something about passing up that edge on the turn when I'm still often ahead annoys me...

Or maybe there's a non-obvious alternative line that's even better, like 3 bet and check/call the river (although I don't think this will induce bluffs all that often)...

Sorry, just rambling...thoughts?

Comments

  • Interesting post Scoobyd. I also like the passive approach here for all the reasons you stated. From my observations though I'm in the minority, most seem to prefer blatant aggression here.

    To add to your thoughts, The odd time your 3 bet folds an aggressive opponent and you miss out on his inevitable river bet when he's behind. Also your 3 bet could get capped here..then what?...you can lose 6 bets as opposed to 3.
  • Here are some of my ramblings....
    ScoobyD wrote: »
    I'm speaking from a limit perspective. I'll give an example just off the top of my head...

    You raise JJ in EP and get a couple callers.

    Flop 9d4s2c, you bet and get a caller, other folds. Turn is a 6s putting 2 spades on board, you bet and are raised by an aggressive player.

    What line do you guys typically like taking here? How does it vary depending on being in/out of position?

    This is yet another "it depends". I'm raising here with my overpair. Since you only got called PF and on the flop, I'd put mr agressive on a weak Ace. In most limit games that I've been involved in, if he had a PP, I think there would have been a raise PF from him.

    The 2spades on the board is fairly meaningless to me on the turn. Doubt if he would raise a flush draw (esp in limit).
    What if instead of an undercard, we get a moderately scary overcard like Qs?

    This one really depends on my read, but 80% of the time I am probably raising. If he raises, I'd just call and probably check/call the river.
Sign In or Register to comment.