JJ in position

[RacingSilver]

I have 4700 chips in Seat 6 which is about average.
Blinds 100-200.
9 players at the table.

I've been raising pre-flop frequently and stealing the blinds.
A few hands ago, a raise by me from late position was shoved on by Seat 7.

I have Jd, Jh.

Folded to me, I raise to 550, SB is the only caller (he has 10,200).
He has called a lot pre-flop so has a wide range.
Other than that I know nothing else about him.

Flop - 9h, 6c, 4d.
SB checks. I bet 850 and SB calls.

Turn - Ks (3000 in pot).

SB checks,
I have 3300 behind. What do I do ?

[peterswellman]

I check behind and more than likely call a bet on the river.

[TheDrunkenOne]

I am going nowhere in this with my stack with only one overcard and his range

at same time i dont like to check behind and give another card

So as i in my own head have decided i am going all the way will bet 1200 here as it looks like a value bet and shows i am pot committed

this gives me chance to take it down now and make a good % increase in my stack and not give 'villian' the extra card

If he calls I then jam / call next street as i have displayed and decided i am not going away

This i feel looks stronger and gives 2 strikes at taking it down here

[RacingSilver]

I got this hand from the 'Apestyles' section of 'Winning Poker Tournaments - One Hand at a Time'.
I think checking here is awful, but he advocates checking behind and gives a lot of complicated reasoning to back this up. Of course, the villain has TT, and the hero extracts much more out of him than he would have by betting.

There seems to be a lot of hands in this book where the authors give their reasoning for their actions, and it all works out because the villain has the exact type of hand that fits nicely with the authors' reasoning.

There seems to be a few good reviews of this book on 2+2 but i think it's a bit manufactured. I'm a bit rusty so any opinions welcome.

[Flushdraw]

I got this hand from the 'Apestyles' section of 'Winning Poker Tournaments - One Hand at a Time'.
I think checking here is awful, but he advocates checking behind and gives a lot of complicated reasoning to back this up. Of course, the villain has TT, and the hero extracts much more out of him than he would have by betting.

There seems to be a lot of hands in this book where the authors give their reasoning for their actions, and it all works out because the villain has the exact type of hand that fits nicely with the authors' reasoning.

There seems to be a few good reviews of this book on 2+2 but i think it's a bit manufactured. I'm a bit rusty so any opinions welcome.

Give us your reasons for betting the turn

[cardshark202]

The problems in this hand is you get to the turn with 3k in the pot and 3.3k behind. That's poor betsizing. I would shove the turn for value, or bet small and call it off.

[RacingSilver]

Give us your reasons for betting the turn

Like I said I'm a bit rusty, but I don't want to give my opponent a free card here.
He called a flop bet so there's a good chance he has caught a piece of the flop, maybe hands like T9, 98, 76,65,A9,88,77.
If I don't bet the turn, and he doesn't improve on the river, then he won't call a bet, so I gain nothing.
If he does improve, then he's going to get some or all of my chips.
So, I think I gain nothing by checking.
I would go all-in here.

[RacingSilver]

The problems in this hand is you get to the turn with 3k in the pot and 3.3k behind. That's poor betsizing. I would shove the turn for value, or bet small and call it off.

Fair enough - can't argue with that either.
Regarding betsizing, how would you have done it ?

[TommyGunne]

The problems in this hand is you get to the turn with 3k in the pot and 3.3k behind. That's poor betsizing. I would shove the turn for value, or bet small and call it off.

This. I'd shove turn rather than b/c.

All you need to do is bet like 1000 on the flop and then you're betting 3150 into 3300.

[RacingSilver]

All you need to do is bet like 1000 on the flop and then you're betting 3150 into 3300.

Ok, I agree that's a bit better but it's not radically different to the original.
You're now underbetting by 150 as opposed to overbetting by 300.
Are you not splitting hairs here ?

[TommyGunne]

Ok, I agree that's a bit better but it's not radically different to the original.
You're now underbetting by 150 as opposed to overbetting by 300.
Are you not splitting hairs here ?

If something is slightly better imo I'll do it. Slightly better = more money = I'm happier.

[smoothcall]

Disagree bout the bet sizing, 1,000 looks way stronger imo. I'd even c bet smaller tbh, as played I'd prob shove.

[sligoboi]

Disagree bout the bet sizing, 1,000 looks way stronger imo. I'd even c bet smaller tbh, as played I'd prob shove.

While I agree in most circumstances a cbet should be smaller due to board texture I believe this is an occasion where this isn't the case due to a few reasons.

We start the hand with 23.5 bbs which is an awkward enough stack to be the opener at a live table. The larger cbet allows us to get more of our money into the pot when we are relatively sure we have the best hand.

By cbetting smaller we are more likely to get to the river with less than a psb behind and if the board runs out dangerously we can be put in very awkward spots against a relative unknown. The board running out dangerously for our hand means it runs out badly for alll hands we beat making it less likely we can extract value.

If an ace peels on the river and our villain shoves on us we may be left with 10/12bbs behind and have to fold because there were no draws on the flop so we can't really make a hero call vs an unknown.

Cliffs: By cbetting smaller we are relying on the board to run out safely in order for us to be able to extract value. Also if the Villain has 1010 here he's played it ridic poorly imo.

[smoothcall]

meh, I don't think its hard to play at all. his range is fairly simple when he calls, i've no problem playing turns and rivers. He's alot more likely to check raise a smaller c bet too, a 1k bet and he'll prob fold small pocket pairs.

[BuChan]

Disagree bout the bet sizing, 1,000 looks way stronger imo. I'd even c bet smaller tbh, as played I'd prob shove.

i think so to, less pre and less on flop. as played i'd check the turn and bet the river if checked to or call a lead. if he's v loose pre then he could easily have a very weak hand on this flop which he'll probably fold if you bet that K but he might talk himself into calling on the river or try and bluff/valuetown himself.

[cardshark202]

I would also make it less pre, and bet a lot less on the flop, but I don't see too much harm in making it a 2 street game as opposed to 3 streets here if the image and opponent are right. And given the description here it seems ok.

Also checking the turn would be a terrible play in this hand imo, because a river bet looks a lot less bluffy imo. If I checked the turn, I would probably try some tiny inducing bet on most rivers.

[Mellor]

Ok, I agree that's a bit better but it's not radically different to the original.
You're now underbetting by 150 as opposed to overbetting by 300.
Are you not splitting hairs here ?

not splitting hairs at all.
It's an under/over bet difference of 450, which is c.15% of your stack/pot on the turn. not an insignificant amount.

The the poor sizing started preflop, 550 is too much imo. You might say its only 100, it be compounds every bet and call. 450 pre, 650 flop, leaves 2 half pot bets on turn and river.
To get it in over 2 streets you need to almost pot flop and turn, which is fine agaisnt his wide range

[Winning!]

King is a largely irrelevant card to villains range, but we never get called by better if we bet so you can check back here. Villains range will be fairly weighted towards low 1Pair hands which want to see a cheap showdown, so if he comes out betting big on the river you can re-evaluate your hand w/reads etc.. Value-shove any river if checked to.