Put on brakes if raise is called?

[Silly String]

Should I have put on the brakes, when he called the raise. I justified the allin call by telling myself I only had to have the best hand 1 in 5 times to call this. That was stupid on my part. I don't really like the turn bet either, but let me know what you think. Was the flop raise enough?

PokerStars No-Limit Hold'em, $0.25 BB (6 handed) FTR converter on zerodivide.cx

MP ($20)
Silly String ($39.90)
Button ($24.40)
SB ($1.80)
BB =#A500AF(villain)/ ($20.75)
UTG ($11.35)

Preflop: Silly String is CO with A, T. MP posts a blind of $0.25.
2 folds, MP (poster) checks, Silly String raises to $1, Button calls $1, 1 fold, BB =#A500AF(villain)/ calls $0.75, MP calls $0.75.

Flop: ($4.10) 6, A, 7 (3 players)
villain bets $1.25, MP folds, Silly String raises to $3.5, Button folds, villain calls $2.25.

Turn: 2
villain checks, Silly String bets $8.5, villain raises to $16.25, Silly String calls $7.75.

[CrunchyNuts]

ATs isn't a solid hand if just the ace hits. I'da checked the turn through and hoped for a cheap showdown...you had a hand, but just not a big one.

[lowBoy]

I think you should have put out a bet on the turn, just make it smaller. He could be drawing to a flush, and you do have a bit of a hand.

[dalecooper]

I don't mind your play here too much. After he calls you on the flop raise, you have to suspect he has one of these:

1. a flush draw
2. an ace with some kicker that beats yours at least half the time (either by pairing up or just out-kicking you)

The flush draw is a distinct possibility, and if so you want him to pay to play. Your raise on the flop is good. On the turn you bet about 2/3 of the pot. That's fine if you want the flush draw to keep paying to draw; if he hadn't check-raised you I don't think you'd even question this move. There are three other possible actions:

A. check behind since you have the position to do this. The only reason to check behind is that your information is thin and you'd like a cheap showdown in case he has you outkicked.
B. bet less, maybe 1/2 the pot (about $6). This still makes him pay for his draw if that's what he's got, and makes it less likely he will re-raise all in. A lot of times if someone is getting short-stacked in a cash game and someone bets half their chips, they'll just raise all in with their draw, their ace, or whatever they have. You'd like to try to avoid this because then it puts you to a difficult decision.
C. bet more... way more. If you're an aggressive player you might well put him all in right there. Yes, it's an overbet, but it gives him the difficult decision, not you. Sometimes you'll be wrong and lose all that money (which you would have anyway, the way you played it). Sometimes you'll be right and he'll fold. Sometimes you'll be right and he'll call, and either suck out on you or not.

All things considered, I'd want to go with option B or C. Checking behind isn't terrible either, but it really opens you up to a bluff on the river, and if he's drawing it gives him a free card. Also it deprives you of information you really need with a hand like this one.

[a500lbgorilla]

fold the turn.

-'rilla

[dsaxton]

I don't mind your play here too much. After he calls you on the flop raise, you have to suspect he has one of these:

1. a flush draw
2. an ace with some kicker that beats yours at least half the time (either by pairing up or just out-kicking you)

The flush draw is a distinct possibility, and if so you want him to pay to play. Your raise on the flop is good. On the turn you bet about 2/3 of the pot. That's fine if you want the flush draw to keep paying to draw; if he hadn't check-raised you I don't think you'd even question this move. There are three other possible actions:

A. check behind since you have the position to do this. The only reason to check behind is that your information is thin and you'd like a cheap showdown in case he has you outkicked.
B. bet less, maybe 1/2 the pot (about $6). This still makes him pay for his draw if that's what he's got, and makes it less likely he will re-raise all in. A lot of times if someone is getting short-stacked in a cash game and someone bets half their chips, they'll just raise all in with their draw, their ace, or whatever they have. You'd like to try to avoid this because then it puts you to a difficult decision.
C. bet more... way more. If you're an aggressive player you might well put him all in right there. Yes, it's an overbet, but it gives him the difficult decision, not you. Sometimes you'll be wrong and lose all that money (which you would have anyway, the way you played it). Sometimes you'll be right and he'll fold. Sometimes you'll be right and he'll call, and either suck out on you or not.

All things considered, I'd want to go with option B or C. Checking behind isn't terrible either, but it really opens you up to a bluff on the river, and if he's drawing it gives him a free card. Also it deprives you of information you really need with a hand like this one.

Putting him all-in doesn't really make much sense. It's really only the right play if he has a flush draw, and is a losing action in essentially every other circumstance (since he will only call with hands that have you beaten, and he'll fold any dominated marginal hands which he may've otherwise called with).

I would make a medium-sized bet on the turn, and fold if he raised. On the river I'd check behind if he checked, unless I improved, in which case I'd make a small to medium-sized bet. If he made a bet on the river after calling on the turn, I'd probably call even if I improved, but only if the bet wasn't too large and he wasn't known as the type of player to make large bluffs, in which case I'd probably fold.

[dalecooper]

Putting him all-in doesn't really make much sense. It's really only the right play if he has a flush draw, and is a losing action in essentially every other circumstance (since he will only call with hands that have you beaten, and he'll fold any dominated marginal hands which he may've otherwise called with).

I don't necessarily agree. A "better" hand like AJ may fold fearing AQ or AK; a flush draw will fold, or pay to play; A9/A8 may call out of stubbornness, or fold, and either way is profitable. I don't think this is a clear "only a better hand will call" situation because the hero's play is unusually aggressive. It may make a better hand fold, or bring a worse hand along for an expensive ride (if the other player is a fish). I use this maneuver with moderately strong hands all the time against weak opponents, especially short-stacked ones, and get a surprising volume of calls from draws or weak top pairs. Sometimes a weaker hand calls you specifically BECAUSE you overbet the pot.

In any case, I like the moderate bet/fold to a raise line better, but you really have to look for the right bet because if you go 2/3 of the pot or more (as the hero did here), the opponent's re-raise isn't going to look like such an appealing fold. Hero was getting 5:2 pot odds here - that's hard to fold with any kind of hand, considering the board. If there's even a 30% chance it's a bluff or semi-bluff with a flush draw, that's callable. I think a $6 bet on the turn is probably the best approach, since it gives you wiggle room to leave the hand if he comes back over the top of you. With a $9 bet (which is still not ginormous compared to the pot), his check-raise feels inevitable and it's hard not to call.

[dsaxton]

I don't think this is a clear "only a better hand will call" situation because the hero's play is unusually aggressive. It may make a better hand fold, or bring a worse hand along for an expensive ride (if the other player is a fish).

This is one of those situations precisely because the play is unusually aggressive relative to the strength of his hand. That's kind of the whole idea. The only hands that you can't beat which may fold are very few, he folds any dominated hands which you want to pay you off, and you lose more money whenever he has two pair or a set. The only benefit is that the other guy will fold a draw (unless he's an enormous fish). On the whole, it's not a worthwhile trade-off.

[SinkRox]

i vote for betting a smaller amount at the turn maybe half the pot or very slightly overhalf pot - but an amount where you can run if he comes over the top.

[TalentedTom]

Going all in with AT is just not something you want to be doing. Making a smaller bet on the turn would indicate weakness and he woulda taken you off the hand anyway, this just wasnt meant to be.

[dalecooper]

This is one of those situations precisely because the play is unusually aggressive relative to the strength of his hand. That's kind of the whole idea.

Extensive 6 max experience tells me otherwise. You have no idea how many times I've put a guy all in on the turn and had him call, only to be surprised when I show down top/bottom two pair, or top pair with an OK kicker, against his weak top pair or middle pair. One guy's comment (after showing down middle pair against my two pair): "I thought I was making the sickest read of my life. Why did you bet that hard with a good hand?" There's a lot of decent players AND absolute fish who habitually call overbets with modest hands because they think they're making a read. It's a very devious way to get money from worse hands. And it almost works better on decent-but-not-brilliant players than fish. Fish only see their cards; decent players are trying to figure out what your cards are, and this is a misleading clue.

I'm not saying this is absolutely and for certain one of those situations, but that's why I make that play from time to time, and I get paid off a lot more often than you'd expect, believe me. It's not so simple as "only a better hand will call." Although certainly a better hand WILL call, of course, with the possible exception of AJ. I find that statement applies more to river betting than turn betting.

[dsaxton]

This is one of those situations precisely because the play is unusually aggressive relative to the strength of his hand. That's kind of the whole idea.

Extensive 6 max experience tells me otherwise. You have no idea how many times I've put a guy all in on the turn and had him call, only to be surprised when I show down top/bottom two pair, or top pair with an OK kicker, against his weak top pair or middle pair. One guy's comment (after showing down middle pair against my two pair): "I thought I was making the sickest read of my life. Why did you bet that hard with a good hand?" There's a lot of decent players AND absolute fish who habitually call overbets with modest hands because they think they're making a read. It's a very devious way to get money from worse hands. And it almost works better on decent-but-not-brilliant players than fish. Fish only see their cards; decent players are trying to figure out what your cards are, and this is a misleading clue.

I'm not saying this is absolutely and for certain one of those situations, but that's why I make that play from time to time, and I get paid off a lot more often than you'd expect, believe me. It's not so simple as "only a better hand will call." Although certainly a better hand WILL call, of course, with the possible exception of AJ. I find that statement applies more to river betting than turn betting.

Obviously it's possible that overbetting can lead to someone to thinking you're bluffing and calling with a weak hand, but it isn't probable in general. I don't know who these people are that you say are calling all-in with second pair, but typically most poker players are not willing to do this against a random opponent.

Besides, In order for this play to make sense, not only does your opponent have to be willing to make these calls, but you also have to be ahead a reasonable percentage of the time. How often is he ahead after his flop raise is called?

[dalecooper]

Obviously it's possible that overbetting can lead to someone to thinking you're bluffing and calling with a weak hand, but it isn't probable in general. I don't know who these people are that you say are calling all-in with second pair, but typically most poker players are not willing to do this against a random opponent.

I almost always go after short stacks (75% of the buy-in or less), and in short-handed games only. In a full ring game, and/or against somebody with a normal or large stack, I agree with you: it won't pay off most of the time.

Besides, In order for this play to make sense, not only does your opponent have to be willing to make these calls, but you also have to be ahead a reasonable percentage of the time. How often is he ahead after his flop raise is called?

Depends on the texture of the flop & the pre-flop action. This time there's a pretty good chance of a flush draw or weaker ace (especially since the caller was on the big blind and had a caller ahead of him). Hands you'd like to see: any two clubs, AT, A9, A8. Hands you wouldn't like to see: 77, 66, AQ, AJ, A7, A6. Basically I'd say you're ahead of this guy half the time, and behind the other half, and whichever one of you is ahead the other guy probably has a handful of outs. If you're going to bet $8 or more you probably should call his all in, if he pushes. The alternative to me (and still my preferred option for this hand) is betting less and folding to a raise, if there is one.