Turn Aggression - Strategy Article

I've been thinking about turn strategy, when you have position, a lot recently, particularly with marginal hands. Whilst I've been playing 1/2, I've noticed that a lot of players react to their opponent's weakness on the turn with aggression on the river. This was less the case at lower stakes where the players are more worried about their own cards.

I'm going to use some examples here:-

A $1/2 game online.

It's folded round to you in the cutoff, and you raise pot ($7) with JTo. The Big Blind (50/5/2.5) calls. Pretty standard really. Pot is $15 preflop.

The flop comes J 7 3 with 2 suits. He checks and you bet $11, your standard continuation bet into a $15 pot. He calls. Pot is ~ $35.

The turn comes a total blank, an offsuit 2. He checks. This is where the situation gets interesting. A lot of people would advocate checking behind 'for pot control'. This, in my opinion, is a fundamentally wrong strategy for several reasons. What I advocate is a bet, which in effect determines the price of a showdown.

Let's look at the two scenarios in more detail.

First scenario, he checks and you check. Pot would still be ~ $35. No matter what comes on the river, you are gonna be facing a bet with about 90% certainty on the river.

If the river comes an overcard, is your second pair good? If the river comes a low flush card, is your top pair good? If the river comes a straight card, is your top pair good? Was he slowplaying a monster (set?) from the start? All these questions going through your head, because you don't really know where you are.

Now, imagine what is going through your opponent's head at this time. 'Well I called his continuation bet with flush draw/straight draw/second pair/top pair weak kicker and he checked behind on the turn. Looks like he doesn't like his hand too much, probably has AK. I've missed my draw/have a weak hand but I'm gonna bet him off his and not give him the chance to bluff on the river - I've got the lead on this hand now and I'm going to take advantage - betting is probably the only way I am going to win this pot'. And why not? Everything is in his favour for a bet. But he can't bet small - because that would make it easier for you to call. So it's safe to assume he'd be betting 70% pot - pot in almost every instance. So about $30 let's say on average. Could be slightly more, could be a bit less. You then have a very tough call to make with what is, in essence, a marginal hand.

Now let's go back to the turn again. He checks, and you bet. You want to protect your hand against a draw, and you want to find out where you stand more, as well as reducing significantly the chance of you getting bluffed on the river. This is pretty important by the way. It would take a pretty gutsy/stupid opponent to lead out on a total bluff with a big bet on the river when you have shown total strength throughout every street, and your likely holding would be an overpair, AJ for top pair top kicker or a set. Therefore you can assume that it's pretty likely that if you bet the turn, and your opponent calls and then he leads/pushes river, your top pair is no good. This would also be true if he check/raised the turn. In my instance, this is hardly ever a bluff, and almost always a hand which even beats top pair top kicker.

So, you decide to bet $25 into the $35 pot (70%). Your opponent calls with his flush draw/straight draw/weak pair. He is almost always going be checking the river to you, which you should then check behind unless your own hand significantly improves on the river.

You have determined the price of the showdown is $25 via your turn bet, and that you want to be betting instead of calling. This is also obviously good because if you call a bet you can only win if your hand is good. But if you make a bet you can also win by betting. For example if villain had QJ on this hand, maybe he'd fold the turn because it looks like he was beat. You have also managed to save $5 on your marginal hand at showdown.

So to summarise:-

You have got your marginal hand to showdown cheaper by betting.
You have reduced the chances of getting bluffed on the river significantly.
You are charging for draws, thereby protecting your hand.
You have more idea of knowing where you stand in the hand, rather than playing a guessing game.

All pretty good advantages, I'd say.

To finish, I'll quickly refer to some other example boards. Say for example a King comes on the turn instead of the 2. I'd still bet if checked to me. Many people are very fearful of the overcard but why? Why should he have a King? There's no logical reason. Many people would have c/r flop with JK anyway. There's still a good chance you are in front.

Say for example it's the same board J 7 3 2 but the flop was all of one suit. You've bet the flop with top pair (whether your kicker is of the suit or not) and your opponent calls. If he checks the turn, I'd still bet again. There's a good chance he has Q/K/A of the suit of the flop and if you check behind on the turn he'll bet the river regardless of if it comes or not, for the reasons I've already discussed.

A final example is if the flop was QJ7 with 2 suits or similar, so you flop second pair instead of top pair. I'd also often bet the turn given the same betting pattern. There's a good chance your opponent is drawing and you are in front and I also think if you bet the turn he'd definitely fold JT/JK/JA a lot of the time which is obviously a huge advantage. It's also even harder to call a sizeable river bet which could often be a bluff as unless the river is a card lower than 7 you aren't going to be liking the river very often.

There is one final thing to mention - if you have a good hand (perhaps top pair top kicker or higher) you may want to check behind on the turn to induce a bluff on the river. This would be pretty dependent on a lot of things though, such as your hand, what range you put your opponent on, the threatening nature of the board and yours and your opponents image.

I hope you like the article, I'd be grateful for any feedback.

Dan.