3 Turn Myths That Are Killing Your Win Rate
If you're an online poker player grinding micro-stakes, low-stakes, or even taking shots at mid-stakes—or a live player in $1/$2, $2/$5, or $5/$10 games—then chances are, you're falling for some major turn play myths. Unless you're already an elite crusher, I’d wager you’re making at least one of these mistakes.
The turn is crucial for your win rate. It’s time to rub the fog from your eyes and see it clearly. Today, we’re going to break down three common myths about turn play and free your game from the shackles of poker hearsay. You know, the kind of advice you hear from the guy with a beer and a rag at the cardroom—just because something’s been repeated often doesn’t make it true.
Let’s debunk the most common myth first.
Myth #1: You Always Have to Double Barrel Your Flush Draw on the Turn
No, you don’t. Well—sometimes you do. But not always.
Let’s get specific. Take Ten-Nine of Hearts. You’ve c-bet the flop small from the big blind in a single-raised pot. You get called. The turn comes. This hand is a mandatory bet according to poker theory.
But that doesn’t mean all flush draws should be barreled. This is where stronger players separate themselves from those playing by vague patterns.
The real skill is in seeing beneath the surface—identifying the meaningful differences between spots that appear similar at first glance.
- : Also a mandatory bet.
Why? Because of semi-nuttedness. You’re drawing to a strong flush, dominating many worse flush draws that might call. When the flush hits, you’re often on the right side of a cooler. Sure, that scenario is rare—but when it happens, it dictates massive pots. So you want to be on the winning side of those. - : Mandatory check.
Why? Showdown value. If you’re ahead of Villain’s Ace-high or King-Jack floats from the flop, you’re already winning. Betting here doesn’t achieve enough fold equity, and you risk turning a winning hand into a bluff. - : Mandatory bluff.
Why? It has some semi-nuttedness, yes. But also extra redraw potential—two overcards to second pair, which gives it fold equity and equity when called. Even better, Ten and Nine block offsuit Queen-X, a super common value region for villains. These blockers help you deny equity from hands like Queen-Ten, Queen-Nine that might be slowplaying.
Flush Draws You Want to Bet:
- Low showdown value (e.g. King-high)
- Semi-nutted draws
- Lacks showdown value
- Double block parts of villain’s range
Flush Draws You Want to Check:
- Decent showdown value (e.g. Ace-high)
- Lack relevant blockers or redraw potential
- Weaker suited connectors (e.g. Eight-Seven)
Let’s look at the solver for a moment.
If I pick a betting size from the sim, it shows
is not checked. That doesn’t mean checking is terrible EV-wise—but it’s clearly a small mistake. The solver classifies it as a pure bet.
If I open up the full sim, you’ll see high Ace-X flush draws start checking more often, but around , we start losing to too many of villian's .
Like, it’s true that has some showdown value against a hand like —something that might float the flop versus a small c-bet. And yeah, of course that hand should float.
So we get this idea in our head, right? “I’m beating King-Jack, I have some showdown value... maybe I should check.”
And honestly, that’s a strong enough reason to check , the non-backdoor version. It’s passive, yes, but defensible.
But when we hold —a hand that sets up the bigger pot for the cooler, still gets folds from better hands, and retains equity across runouts?
That’s different. Now you’ve got enough of the betting markers present to make betting clearly preferable.
- You’re blocking some continues
- You’re uncapping your range
- You’re denying equity from hands that would otherwise float
- And you still have the ability to hit strong rivers or fold out better Ace-x
So yes—while showdown value alone can justify a check in some spots , that isn’t the full story when you hold .
Betting becomes the better path—not because you have zero showdown value, but because you check enough other hands in your range, and this combo ticks enough boxes to press your advantage.
When we look at King-high flush draws, again we see a lack of showdown value combined with nuttedness. That’s what pushes them toward being good turn bluffs.
But as we move down to Jack-high flush draws, they’re now more indifferent. You don’t have to bet hands like Jack-Five of Hearts anymore. They're marginal.
Drop down further to something like —you’ve got inferior blockers and no real EV gain from betting. You can still bet, sure, but it’s not mandatory.
Myth #2: You Need Equity to Barrel the Turn
This is false—especially when you’re in position.
In many IP double-barrel spots, both in single-raised and 3-bet pots, you can barrel the turn without equity.
Now, a word of caution. If you’re out of position, fold equity is much harder to come by. In theory, the in-position player is incentivized to over-defend, so your fold equity tanks. Bluffing trash hands OOP without good board dynamics? Bad idea. But in position, that doesn’t happen. You basically never run into a fold equity deficit on the turn when double-barreling.
Let’s look at a specific example.
Say you’re holding . The turn brings no help. You’re thinking, “It’s Eight-high. No equity. No draw. Easy check.” Seems logical.
But this is where the concept of “better bluffs fallacy” comes in—a mistake many American players make.
This is the idea that, “Since I’d rather bluff with than with , I’ll bet the Ten-Seven and check the Eight-Five.”
Sounds reasonable… but it’s wrong.
Here’s why:
In poker theory, a hand is a viable bluff if the EV of betting is greater than or equal to the EV of checking.
With a hand like Eight-Five offsuit, your check EV is nearly zero—just a tiny slice of the pot. So betting doesn’t need to be amazing, it just needs to be slightly better than that sliver of check EV.
So can you bet Eight-Five? Well… actually, no—but not because it's Eight-high. Not because it’s trash. Not even because it lacks a draw. The real reason is subtle.
It’s because of the . Why is the Eight a bad card? “Um… because it doesn’t have any draw?” Nope.
suited also has no draw, but that’s a fine bluff here. So what's the problem? The Eight is bad because it blocks offsuit combos of folding hands. Specifically, it blocks offsuit—one of the few offsuit Jacks that would call preflop and would fold the turn.
When you block hands that are meant to fold, you reduce your bluff’s fold equity. And that swings the balance just enough to make Eight-Five offsuit a bad bluff.
Meanwhile, suited doesn’t block those folding combos. It gets through more often. So it becomes a better bluff, even though both hands are “trash.” This is a tiny edge, but at equilibrium, it matters.
You’re not comparing your hand to “better bluffs” in a linear pecking order. You’re comparing your hand’s betting EV to its own check EV, and seeing if there’s enough edge left to bluff profitably.
But I’m not making a huge deal about the Eight blocker here. What I do want to make a big deal about is the fact that Six-Five of Clubs can bet. That’s important.
Here’s the sim output. The betting range is in orange, and what do we see?
? Pure bet. No surprise there. It has extreme redraw nuttedness, plenty of outs, and it’s often on the right end of coolers.
of spades? Again, a pure bet. Very little showdown value on this texture. Same with Ace-Three of Spades—these are clean bluff candidates.
offsuit? Still a bet. Why? Because even though it's a weaker draw, it has plenty of outs, low check EV, and blocks key hands like and —strong draws that won't fold, and sometimes even raise.
Now, let’s say you’re sitting in your Thursday night game, and you didn’t bluff in a similar spot. That’s okay. I don’t care that you missed it.
What I care about is that you understand that you can.
Because once you internalize that a hand with neutral blockers and no showdown value can still generate enough fold equity to make betting at least as good as checking… You’re free, my child. I’m old now. I call everyone my child.
You're no longer shackled to the idea that:
- “If only I had a Ten…”
- “If only I had two Spades…”
- "I can have better bluffs here..."
No. That’s cope. That’s the kind of logic live players use!
And we don’t want to be live poker players now, do we?
This board? It’s easy to hit.
The on the turn is like a tidal wave—it makes the texture wet, connected, and hard to miss.
So what happens when we use the solver’s suggested sizing here—75% pot (B75)?
Well, this turn uncaps the ranges, but it doesn’t give us a massive nut advantage. We don’t have a monopoly on the strong hands. Villain has two-pair. Villain has straights.
So what do we have?
A slight range advantage, maybe, in some narrow regions (like combo draws or marginal two-pair). But not enough to warrant a huge bet or a polarizing shove.
So we stick to a medium-sized barrel, B75, and defending that barrel is intuitive for your opponent. They just:
- Call top pair
- Call some second pair with spades
- Fold jacks with no redraw
- Raise combo draws
In the real world, maybe you get that one stationy player who calls down with Jack-Seven. That’ll happen. But overall? This isn’t a massively overfolded spot like some others.
So while it’s fine to bluff with Six-Five here, this isn’t some secret exploit weapon that prints money. It’s just an option that exists.
What I’m really trying to improve here is your long-term understanding of how turn bluffing works in theory.
If your opponent is nitty—if they overreact to wet textures and start seeing monsters under the bed, they might fold hands. In that case? Always bet Six-Five. Always.
But if they’re sticky, like, “I’ve got Jack-high. I called the flop, and I’m not going anywhere!” Then don’t bluff.
In fact, don’t bluff Six-Five, Ten-Eight, or anything marginal in that case.
Knowing the threshold for betting, knowing the default theoretical strategy, that’s what gives you the foundation to make accurate adjustments in real games—whether you're:
- Playing live
- Grinding online
- Using Mass Data Analysis (MDA)
- Exploiting common tendencies
You need that baseline.
Myth #3: You’ve Got to Bet Your Top Pair on the Turn
This myth shows up everywhere. Do you have to bet top pair on the turn? Well… sometimes.
Let’s look at an example.
Say the flop is , and the turn is the . You have . You bet the flop, they call.
Now the turn brings you top pair.
This is a mandatory bet in poker theory most of the time. It’s:
- A vulnerable hand that benefits from protection.
- A strong hand relative to Villain’s range.
- A value target for worse Jacks, Eights, and draws.
But here’s the twist:
If your top pair was flopped, not turned, the logic changes.
Let’s go back to our actual example.
On the flop, you have .
The turn is a .
You still have top pair, but now it’s more multi-street resistant. You’ve already filtered Villain’s range toward pairs, and you’re ahead of some of them—but not smashing.
You might hover over your hand in the sim and see, “77% equity!” Awesome, right?
Just because you have 77% equity, doesn’t automatically mean you should bet. But this hand is actually a check. It’s a check basically all the time.
Now, betting isn’t a huge mistake in EV terms—it’s just that GTO prefers checking here as the default play.
Why?
Well, this is where many beginner or intermediate players in coaching sessions will ask: “Aren’t I just giving a free card to Queen-Ten or a flush draw or Jack-x if I check?” And the answer is: yes… But you’re not looking at the whole game tree. You’re being blindsided by the part that feels most scary to your lizard brain. The part that screams, “What if they hit? What if I get outdrawn?!”
It’s an animalistic, fear-based reaction that doesn’t want to lose a pot you’re currently ahead in. Totally normal. Poker pain sucks.
But let’s step back.
If you could see Villain’s cards:
- And they had Queen-Ten? Sure, betting would be correct.
- But if they had King-Ten, betting or checking doesn’t matter much.
- If they had King-Jack, King-Queen, or 4x, you’d actually want to check.
- If they had Queen-Nine or total air? Sure, you could bet to deny some equity. But you could also check and call a river bet.
And unless they know your hand and choose never to bluff, it’s not clear that betting is better.
When people say, “You’ve got to bet again here to charge the draws!”
what they’re doing is mentally picturing Queen-Ten, Jack-Nine, and flush draws wrapping around your top pair.
Their brain is reacting to the visual threat. And yeah, poker is filled with visual threat cues. But it’s also filled with merit in checking.
Another thing I hear a lot: “You’ve got to check here to protect your checking range.”
That’s… not really true. You never have to do anything “for the sake of your range.” You might check because you're indifferent and want to mix, or because your hand falls naturally into that line.
The real reason we check here is simpler. Your hand doesn’t have enough equity to make value betting mandatory.
If you upgraded this hand, you’d absolutely bet.
