Widening Turn Range: Somewhat Muddles Thoughts

The C Kid

Since I've been playing less, and under alot less stress from playing, I've been analysing my game alot more and generally re-constructing my overall play. Its funny that despite having alot less time to play i seem to be taking way more time to analyse my game that when i was playing a lot.

I've always considered my a decent postflop player but after a downswing like i suffered, i thought it would be pretty important to take a detailed look at all aspects of my game.

I could write an essay on the mistakes I've made but a re-occurring theme in hands that i feel that I've misplayed is my turn play. I find fourth street the hardest street for whatever reason. Perhaps as its the street where you have the most complete incomplete information if that makes sense.

One of the best thought process tools that I've been using when trying to go over hands, and pinpoint where I've lost equity or made a serious error was an article that was published a few months ago by Jman and was then briefly discussed on here.

http://www.bluffmagazine.com/onlinefeature/gbucks.asp


Basically the idea of trying to widen your hand range on individual streets is something I've been working on ever since, and now specifically the turn. By widening my range its forcing my opponent to make a harder equity decision as my hand is less defined.

So i'm starting to slowly make some different moves on the turn. I've always found I've played more passively on the turn than on the flop, so my first move is to become more aggressive and I'm actively seeking a reason to bet the turn as opposed to a reason not to bet. Of course I've been trying to balance this with checking behind big draws occasionally just to ensure that my range for checking/betting can include all hands and not be seperate entities. Which is obviously crucial to the whole idea outlined in the article.

I thought a hand a mate posted on another forum the other day was really interesting, and fitted in with the general idea of how your turn action can widen your range not only on the turn but also the river.

You are playing 50-100, 5 handed, your 4 opponents are young aggressive and decent thinking players. They all have 40k+, you sit with 14k. They view you as pretty tight and maybe easy to push around.

Straddle to 200, next to act makes it 700, you call on button with JsJc. Straddler passes.

Flop Td5d2d. He bets 1200, you call.

Turn is 2c. He checks to you. Whats your plan here? Bet/check? If betting call a shove?

I'd have checked behind here all the time. This was still my first thought when i saw this hand posted. I'm still not sure there's any other option! Below is the conversation i had on the hand with someone about it.

X says:
you ever bet turn?

Me says:
no

X says:
i think its close

Me says:
but i feel as if close

Me says:
you beat me lol

Me says:
players i play against easy check behind, at that stakes and decent oppos i think betting has plus points too


X says:
If he pots river after you check behind you can't call

X says:
vv good players dont bluff with this line

Me says:
yeah, agreed.

Me says:
thats why maybe betting turn is better

X says:
i know

Me says:
your hand range is wider then if that makes sense, given as btting normally narrows your range

X says:
beting turn and calling shove is ok

Me says:
yeah if they view you as tight, then callin a shove may be ok

X says:
exactly

Me says:
when you check behind vs donk, you get value by them bluffing, decent player never bluffs there, so your hand is effectively face up.

X says:
exactly

Me says:
you bet turn with AK one diamond?

X says:
yeah defo

X says:
well maybe

X says:
dunno

Me says:
yeah its tough, hard to know if i prefer check behind with AK rather than JJ now


Thought this hand was a really good discussion hand so was emailing all this to a mate who i talk poker with but thought I'd post this this here to see if anyone has any thoughts on anything i mentioned or is my thought process way out on the overall aspect that the hand highlights. And if nothing the thread will at least bump the great Jman article (that was originally posted by Robin Lacey)

Cheers.

Goodluck2me

its very much of the metagame type of analysis imo. your playing to your image and reacting to how others will react to you so to speak. Like overbetting the nuts when you have a maniacal image as people never believe you, but if you had been playing at a new table you couldnt do it.