I'll start this one with a hand from tonight that went rather strangely. The analysis to follow has to do a lot with the turn bet as well as the raising quantity (2/5 NLHE).

New player in the game has been catching a lot of 2-pair hands and imo overplaying them. He has something like $500 going into this hand, and I have around $600.

I have AQs on the button and limp after 3 limpers before me, including new guy to my right, who'll play about any ace as well as a bunch of trash (lots of AX, KX hands).

Flop comes A78, rainbow, I believe, although suits are irrelevant here. New player bets out $20 into the $25 pot, and I raise to $60 (information raise). The rest of the table folds, and new player calls.

Turn is a T. I think I still am presumably ahead, so when it's checked to me I bet out $80 into the pot of $145. He moves in for $460, and I fold (another pretty good player and I at the table finally came to the conclusion that he had AT, but with some uncertainty--I don't really see the straight here, but he may also have flopped 2 pair).

Ok, first, I don't like my turn bet here. I think when one's information raise gets a call, it's really better to just check to the river without improvement. I feel like my AQ is enough hand to raise here, but it's certainly not enough hand to really want to play for stack against any normal opponent (i.e., barring "maniac" read). As side note in passing: I think the call here on the part of my opponent is a good argument for making a similar raise on a set (as oppposed to the classic minimum raise).

This, however, raises some questions, I think, regarding raising quantity here. The main one being protecting your hand against draws. Well, if you have a player capable of betting out a good draw (I think I'm the only player in this game who does that, so it's not really a concern here), then the information raise needs to be pretty high, since you're not planning on betting the turn.

In order to give 2:1 on the flop, I'd actually need to bet $85, in point of fact. Then, my opponent would have to call $65 for a chance at a pot of $130. General formula: 3 times the bet plus pot.

With a bit more control over your opponent, I think the raise to $60 is ok, although I really wish I'd made it just a hair more. Anyhow, for purposes of setting up some other bets. such as similar raises on sets as well as semi-bluffs, I really like it a bit higher against an unknown opponent. I rather think $85 was good as semi-bluff or true information raise (as with my AQ) against an unknown opponent. $60-$70 might be a bit better on the set, again assuming it's an unknown opponent--or just a flat call with the intention of raising the turn hard. The flat call is always assumed to be a draw at these tables, so particularly with position, it's a nice way to go--the only downside being that they still don't tend to adequately protect TP-type hands anyway.

Anyhow, I guess the main points of the current post are (just wanted to mention a few other dimensions that do need to be considered here):

1) Make your information raise serious enough to allow a fold. I think giving 2:1 is actually a pretty good guideline.

2) The correct follow-up to a call is just a check to the river without improvement--and really with the intention of folding to any serious heat.

First to ice: Yes, I think that's just right on TP nice kicker--again, I'm not calling some kind of crazy $500 bet with it, but call the river if the bet is within reason (in this case probably up to around $150, I'd say).

To MVP: You're quite right for the most part, although I don't see why that makes a smaller bet good. I do think this is characteristic of a lot of the limit players. But the main thing is that it's obviously not something that you want to emulate.

If he really was calling my raise with AT, then I'm actually happy if he calls a bigger one, and I think AQ can handle the raise to $85 rather than $60 here--if I check the turn rather than betting it. The real problem is that it bumps the pot to a point where a true bet indeed can mean playing for stack, which I don't want to do with this kind of hand.

And the "information raise" gives me information not only in the current hand but also for later ones. If one is playing tight at a loose table, I think it puts you in much better shape actually betting close to as much as your hand can handle. And, ok, if I have to lay it down and lose an extra $25 here, with this guy moving in like that (and checking the turn to me), I can lay down my AQ for a loss of $25 more, but I can now make the same raise on a set or on a nut draw, possibly picking up $450 more on either of those.

Or, I guess to more accurately address your concern: The fact that they're often oblivious to bet-size relative to pot doesn't mean that you have to be.

Ais... I agree w/ your point of betting as much as you can get out of a hand... I'm just not overly secure w/ pushing REALLY HARD w/ TPGK against some of the looser opponents that can hit a weird 2pr and crack ya... I think the times you're gonna raise for info w/ TPTK happen more often than the times that you pull trips, and will end up saving you money in the long run... He seems VERY willing to play his TP crap-kicker for all his money anyway...

My point about the smaller raise was that, holding TPGK against a player that plays Aanything, you can't feel 100% safe with your hand here... Part of your "raise for information" is the folding equity it gives you... My point was a $60 bet is going to give you the same affect on him as an $85 one will... Basically, if he's gonna fold to the $85, he's gonna fold to the $65, and you don't have to be right as many times to still come out ahead... I think Harrington talks about it in his NL book, although he's referring to continuation bets in a tourney... But, I think the theory holds sound...

One thing that I would DEFINITELY take out of his staying in the hand with a supposedly crappy kicker is to remember that when you DO have trips or 2pr, and really kick him in the nuts when he can't let go of his TP... This is one of the best ways to make money off live players, and I'd just prefer to have a little more than TPGK when I try it...

Sorry if that was kinda rambling...

Completely irrelevant answer: Are you playing in the tourney? I just noted it's getting ready to start, and it would be a nice opportunity to chat.

Unfortunately no... I'm stuck at work, and used to sneak my friends laptop in, but he went out of town, and I'm sitting here stuck to my own devices...

I'm in the process of buying a nice laptop so I can play at more convenient times (ie... BTP tourney, sitting on my couch like a lazy bastard, etc...)... I've played the previous ones (not especially well), and LOVE the chat and BSing... But I'm unfortunately sitting this one out...

Tell me where ya play online, and I'll swing by and chat ya up (and probably lose a buttload of money in the process... )

WOW... I just noticed you can't say bastard... oh... I mean b a s t a r d...? WOW... That's pretty puritan, huh...?

When, then on Stars, but I've gotten so casino-addicted now that I hardly play online at all any more. Exception is HU, just to vent my desire for action sometimes. Maybe we could hook up for a $10 HU just for fun sometime?

Works for me... I BLOW at heads up (hope I can say blow without the censors raping me), but it'll be worth the $10 to pick your brain and hopefully improve my game...

I like the live game MUCH better than online, and my profits there show that... The problem is that, at the moment, every freakin thing in Miami is easy to come by (ie... drugs, hookers, stripclubs, liquor), but for whatever reason, gambling is the worlds "great evil", and is forbidden... So, I gotta skip around from underground club to underground club, praying I don't get robbed or raided...

BTW... I'm reading Caros tells book (not sure why I never read it before), and will probably post a bunch of thoughts in the B&M section soon...

Yeah, I'm starting to get that way, too. The whole human interaction thing is just way more fun.

As to Caro, it's a little different (for me, anyway) putting it into practice, but I have noticed a few: Best is actually the "strong means weak" one (players grabbing a big stack of chips like they're going to bet).