Originally Posted by Huey_Freeman

I'm just sitting here wondering what the weak ass turn bet was for?

Originally Posted by Roid_Rage

massive poast

Originally Posted by kickass

my thinking was this, and please berate it all you want; Qx that is in his range would prolly call but might not pay me off if a club river hit. and pp with a club or any clubx really would call to hit the flush. I think its pretty thin but I thought that there was value to be had. I didnt want to bet too much that I would price myself into calling if he shoved.

Originally Posted by surviva316

There's value to be had imo. I might actually be wrong about that given the fact that the 2nd nut flush draw and the 2nd pair that we're trying to get value form overlap, but my instinct is to lean toward betting here.

The problem is the sizing, especially if you hate life when he raises.

Originally Posted by surviva316

There are two problems with this reasoning:

1) card removal. We not only have two of the kings, but one of them is the K of clubs, so that removes a TON of combinations of GSSD/FD type hands.

2) From a theoretical standpoint, we're not actually forcing him to make that big of a mistake by c/c'ing the flop with draws if we're only going to check the turn anyway. This is especially true of FD's where he's ~31% to win the hand if he goes all the way to the river, and we're probably going to be giving him at worst those odds.

We actually force him to make a bigger mistake by waiting to see a safe turn and vbetting that now that he has lower odds. Basically we're treating our own hand like a draw to a value hand and using our position to see a free card; then, once that safe card hits, we're forcing him to make a big mistake either by calling or by folding away his equity.

Of course this spot is a little strange because even now that a flush card hit, we should still bet for value because we have a draw to the nuts plus a split pair vs a likely bad player.

Originally Posted by BlackRain79

Can always bet the river anyways.