During my sessions I'm noting down any interesting hands with a pen and paper (there is probably a way to do this with HEM but the pen works fine for me) and going back over those hands at the end of the session. As it turns out, unsurprisingly, the same topics are coming up in these hands. After playing 10k at 2NL 6max the hands I have noted cover:
- Extracting value postflop
- Weak overpairs vs aggression
- Cbetting in multiway pots
- Betting the turn for value
- Playing low pp's from the blinds
- Iso range vs limps when I'm in the blinds
- Double barreling turn scare cards
Of these, the topic that seems to crop up the most at the minute is definitely value betting the turn. In the past, I have been far too passive postflop. I'd cbet and then just shutdown and look to check hands down if I wasn't looking to build a big pot - all this does is give villain the chance to catch something that beats me, or bet (whether this be a bluff or a perceived value bet) and scare me into folding.
NL Holdem $0.02
Dealt to Hero K K
fold, fold, fold, Hero raises to $0.06, fold, BB calls $0.04
FLOP ($0.13) 7 9 A
BB checks, Hero bets $0.10, BB calls $0.10
TURN ($0.33) 7 9 A 2
BB checks, Hero bets $0.23
Despite villain being a whale, in the past I feel like I'd have checked behind here, convinced that the ace on the board means I'm not getting called by worse than KK - looking at it now though that doesn't seem at all right. Villain can still call a turn bet with 9x, straight draws (68, 10J, 56), 1010, JJ and any sort of flush draw he may have picked up.
Obviously it helps that villain is terribad here and I'm in position, but I still think this hand demonstrates the point I'm trying to make.
I need to pay more attention to spots where I can value bet the turn with hands other than the nuts.
However, I also need to be aware that in doing so, I run the risk of being overly aggressive and spewing in very marginal spots and value towning myself. Something to work on.
I guess this is what I was trying to get at. Although it is important to note that in the discussion of the quoted thread, there are a number of posters advocating checking these weaker hands on the turn to value bet the river instead as Villain is likely to call a river bet lighter with weak made hands, knowing that is the final bet they will face. The only thing I'm questioning about this is that obviously we miss value from draws.
Originally Posted by UnmentionableForum
So I think the conclusion I have come to is that if, by the turn, we have a marginal hand and villain has a number of draws in their range, we should value bet. If villain is unlikely to have a draw, we should consider checking the turn to bet the river to get the most value from weaker "made hands" in villains range.
This may be painfully simple, but I feel like I've learnt something just writing this out. If thats the only purpose this blog serves, it can't hurt, right?
tl;dr - villains range and board texture on turn define whether we should value bet weaker hands on turn or look to check through and value bet on river. who'd have thought.