Value bet this river?

[PantherZ]

The opponent in this hand is loose/passive. My notes show that he plays any two broadway, any two suited, and any ace from any position.

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (10 handed)

Preflop: PantherZ is SB with J/images/graemlins/spade.gif, K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
UTG folds, UTG+1 folds, UTG+2 folds, MP1 calls, MP2 folds, MP3 calls, CO folds, Button folds, PantherZ completes, BB checks.

Flop: (4 SB) K/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 3/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 5/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="blue">(4 players)</font>
<font color="CC3333">PantherZ bets</font>, BB folds, MP1 folds, MP3 calls.

Turn: (3 BB) 4/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
<font color="CC3333">PantherZ bets</font>, MP3 calls.

River: (5 BB) 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="blue">(2 players)</font>
PantherZ ???

[PhatTBoll]

Bet. Given your read, there are approximately 40 million worse hands your opponent will call with here.

[Entity]

Bet if you can fold to a raise (which you should, from a loose-passive).

Rob

[PantherZ]

So, the thinking here is that he will frequently call with worse hands (as PhatTBoll also pointed out), but if he raises then I can safely fold my hand?

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
So, the thinking here is that he will frequently call with worse hands (as PhatTBoll also pointed out), but if he raises then I can safely fold my hand?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yup. A loose-passive will call you down with lots of hands that you beat, and will only raise hands that beat you. They make is surprisingly easy to play poker. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Rob

[PantherZ]

Suppose the opponent in this hand was a tricky/aggressive player. Would it be better to check the river to induce a bluff or would you still value bet? If so, would you be more inclined to call a raise from this type of player?

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose the opponent in this hand was a tricky/aggressive player. Would it be better to check the river to induce a bluff or would you still value bet? If so, would you be more inclined to call a raise from this type of player?

[/ QUOTE ]
Against a tricky aggressive player who would bluff-raise this river, I'm check-calling. It sucks because they force me to abandon my normal line, but bet-calling would be incorrect unless they will bluff-raise more often than 12.5% of the time.

Rob

[ecooke]

Everybody says bet and something about calling with worse hands. I say hm... check/call. For essentially the same reasons I stated in a similar thread regarding a four flush:

[ QUOTE ]
When you bet and he raises he's almost always going to have you beat. And if you are still ahead, he will likely fold fearing the flush. However, if you check into a four flush many players will bet with any holding as a bluff hoping your implied weakness in checking will cause you to fold. Therefore, you catch an extra bet when your opponent bluffs into you and save a bet when he has the flush.

[/ QUOTE ]
What's your line?

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
Everybody says bet and something about calling with worse hands. I say hm... check/call. For essentially the same reasons I stated in a similar thread regarding a four flush:

[ QUOTE ]
When you bet and he raises he's almost always going to have you beat. And if you are still ahead, he will likely fold fearing the flush. However, if you check into a four flush many players will bet with any holding as a bluff hoping your implied weakness in checking will cause you to fold. Therefore, you catch an extra bet when your opponent bluffs into you and save a bet when he has the flush.

[/ QUOTE ]
What's your line?

[/ QUOTE ]
Loose passive players don't bluff 4-straight river boards often enough for that line to be profitable. In addition, their trademark is calling when odds are against them.

Let's say that a loose-passive player has an ace 50% of the time here. Of the 50% of the time he doesn't have an ace, he's got a weaker King or a pair of 5's 30% of the time, and will call. The other 20% of the time he folds.

Of that 50%, whenever you bet, he'll raise. You lose 1BB 50% of the time betting, for a net loss of -.5BB.

30% of the time you bet and he calls with a worse hand. Net gain: +.3BB.

20% of the time you bet and he folds. 0EV.

Total EV of bet/folding is -.2BB.

If you check, he'll only bet with better hands, because loose-passive players don't bluff rivers like this very often. So 50% of the time, you lose 1BB, for a net loss of -.5BB.

He'd have to bluff-bet this river 30% of the time, consequently, for check-calling to have the same EV as bet/folding.

Does that make sense? Numbers may be off; I'm watching Saving Private Ryan.

Rob

[PhatTBoll]

Why give a free showdown when you probably have the best hand? The opponent here is passive. This means he is unlikely to bet with a worse hand if checked to, and probably has a winning hand if he raises you. It also means he will call here with any manner of garbage. This is an easy bet.

[ecooke]

Saving Private Ryan is a good movie and your numbers look fine.

[ QUOTE ]
If you check, he'll only bet with better hands, because loose-passive players don't bluff rivers like this very often.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have the data handy so I really can't say. If he always checks with a worse hand (say 50% overall) and always bets the other 50% of the time, we need him to be betting with a worse hand 25% of the time for this to be +EV. I'll take this line against a Bet/Fold giving me -.2BB. Seem completely unreasonable?

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
Saving Private Ryan is a good movie and your numbers look fine.

[ QUOTE ]
If you check, he'll only bet with better hands, because loose-passive players don't bluff rivers like this very often.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have the data handy so I really can't say. If he always checks with a worse hand (say 50% overall) and always bets the other 50% of the time, we need him to be betting with a worse hand 25% of the time for this to be +EV. I'll take this line against a Bet/Fold giving me -.2BB. Seem completely unreasonable?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, because 50% of the time, you lose 1BB (Net -.5BB). 25% of the time, you gain 1BB. +.25BB. Net: -.25BB, which is still worse than the -.2BB of bet/folding. He's got to bet a worse hand 30% of the time here, which a loose/passive (this read is IMPORTANT) won't.

Rob

[cold_cash]

If all of this numbers/calculations stuff goes completely over my head, does it mean I'm destined to suck at poker? Seriously.

Does it make any difference if I know that our hero should bet the river?

P.S. - I'm glad I never had to fight in a war.

[ecooke]

[ QUOTE ]
because 50% of the time, you lose 1BB (Net -.5BB). 25% of the time, you gain 1BB. +.25BB. Net: -.25BB, which is still worse than the -.2BB of bet/folding. He's got to bet a worse hand 30% of the time here, which a loose/passive (this read is IMPORTANT) won't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, no.
50% I lose 0BB (both check)
25% I win 1BB (villain bets, hero wins)
25% I lose 1BB (villain bets, villain wins)
yeah?

[ecooke]

[ QUOTE ]
does it mean I'm destined to suck at poker?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, it means you will play more by feel than by math. It also means women will like you more than they like me.

[ QUOTE ]
Does it make any difference if I know that our hero should bet the river?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, it does. It's all about EV.

[cold_cash]

[ QUOTE ]
No, it means you will play more by feel than by math.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand a little of the math when it comes to outs and odds and all that crap. I'm always amazed at you "math guys", though. (I mean that as a compliment.) I wish I had a mind like that.

[ QUOTE ]
It also means women will like you more than they like me.


[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, you have no idea. I get more box than UPS.

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it does. It's all about EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you're right, since I don't understand all the technical mumbo-jumbo.

[Richard Berg]

I've never seen math in the Small Stakes forum go about the level of 6th-grade arithmetic, so I'll bet if you put your mind to it you'd grok it without much trouble. The question is whether retraining your left brain is +EV when you could spend that time working on your Shania.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
because 50% of the time, you lose 1BB (Net -.5BB). 25% of the time, you gain 1BB. +.25BB. Net: -.25BB, which is still worse than the -.2BB of bet/folding. He's got to bet a worse hand 30% of the time here, which a loose/passive (this read is IMPORTANT) won't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, no.
50% I lose 0BB (both check)
25% I win 1BB (villain bets, hero wins)
25% I lose 1BB (villain bets, villain wins)
yeah?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I get what you're trying to say, but there's something off. Let's just start with how often we think he has a better hand (the straight is the most likely better hand). Your math is saying that he has the straight only 25% of the time, which goes against the EV calcs I was doing. For us to have comparable numbers, we've got to say he has the straight a comparable amount of the time.

My simple EV numbers show that as a loose-passive player, he will need to bet &gt; 30% of the time for you check/calling to show value. All I'm saying is that a loose-passive player won't bluff with this kind of frequency. They probably won't bet this river with a hand you can beat over 5% of the time.

If you want to give me numbers for how often he'll A) have the straight, B) bet/raise the straight if you bet, and C) call when you bet, I'll go ahead and do the numbers for bet/fold vs. check/call, but you have to remember that he is loose-passive. This is VERY important to remember.

Rob

[ecooke]

Our big disconnect is the "Loose Passive bluffs with a worse hand" factor. I also understand what you are saying but I'm going to continue to try and keep it very simple since the only calculator I own is between my ears:

50% of the time hero loses 0 BB (say 25% hero wins, 25% villain wins)
25% of the time hero loses 1 BB (Villain bets with a better hand - straight, two-pair, whatever)
25% of the time hero wins 1 BB (Villain bets with a lesser hand - smaller pair, high card, or bluff)

If this final 25% is our sticking point, then I can agree that it may be too high for a loose passive opponent. But in general, the line still looks mathematically sound vs. the bet/fold option.
Have we reached a compromise?

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
Our big disconnect is the "Loose Passive bluffs with a worse hand" factor. I also understand what you are saying but I'm going to continue to try and keep it very simple since the only calculator I own is between my ears:

50% of the time hero loses 0 BB (say 25% hero wins, 25% villain wins)
25% of the time hero loses 1 BB (Villain bets with a better hand - straight, two-pair, whatever)
25% of the time hero wins 1 BB (Villain bets with a lesser hand - smaller pair, high card, or bluff)

If this final 25% is our sticking point, then I can agree that it may be too high for a loose passive opponent. But in general, the line still looks mathematically sound vs. the bet/fold option.
Have we reached a compromise?

[/ QUOTE ]
No, because in your math here, villain only has the straight (or a better hand) 25% of the time.

In that event, here's the EV of a bet/fold (assuming he calls 50% of the time on the river, and raises 100% of the time with a straight).

25% of the time, you lose 1BB: -.25BB.
75% of the time, you bet, and he calls 50% of that time: +.375BB.

Net total EV: +.125BB, which is much better than your check/calling line, which is 0BB EV.

Rob

PS - I came up with the "calls the river 50% of the time" figure by looking at loose-passive players I've played over 150 hands with, and seeing how often they fold to a river bet. Most are at 40%, but I'm offering the benefit of the doubt to make my EV line seem less +EV than it is, so I'm saying they fold 50% of the time rather than 40%.

[ecooke]

[ QUOTE ]
No, because in your math here, villain only has the straight (or a better hand) 25% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually no, sir, this is not correct. My numbers assume he has a better hand than KJ 50% of the time (overall) but only bets 25% of the time (also overall – when he has the straight). This seems reasonable to me.

Regardless, if your assumptions that the villain calls 50% of time with a hand that loses to KJ and only raises with the straight are valid - then bet/folding looks like a good line. I can't make any more concessions beyond that.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, because in your math here, villain only has the straight (or a better hand) 25% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually no, sir, this is not correct. My numbers assume he has a better hand than KJ 50% of the time (overall) but only bets 25% of the time (also overall – when he has the straight). This seems reasonable to me.

Regardless, if your assumptions that the villain calls 50% of time with a hand that loses to KJ and only raises with the straight are valid - then bet/folding looks like a good line. I can't make any more concessions beyond that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok -- our disagreement isn't in math, then, but in the interpretation of a loose-passive player and in how often he'll have a better hand than KJ that isn't a straight.

I think the basic summary of what I'm saying is this: if a loose-passive player won't bet hands that beat you here, he won't bet hands that you beat.

The whole basis for this is from Theory of Poker, and I'm surprised that you disagree with it as much as you do. If your opponent will call with more hands than he'll bet, then you should frequently bet the river. If he'll bet with more hands than he'll call with, you should check/call.

Loose-passive players call with more hands than they'll bet; that's implicit in their name. Bet/folding is the right line here. I think I've gone on too much debating this here when the numbers you've given don't support the way a loose-passive player plays.

Rob

[Jim T]

I think that he is saying that a large percentage of loose-passive players will just check the river here EVEN IF THEY MADE THEIR STRAIGHT. Maybe they are so afraid of a 6, they just check in turn.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that he is saying that a large percentage of loose-passive players will just check the river here EVEN IF THEY MADE THEIR STRAIGHT. Maybe they are so afraid of a 6, they just check in turn.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know that's what he's saying; I just disagree, based on my experience. I'd have to see someone checking the turn here 50% of the time to agree with his sentiment, and in my limited playing time, I haven't seen this.

Rob

[ecooke]

Well... no, not really. But it's a nice touch.
Entity is right that I'm talking about my interpretation of a typical opponent and he is talking about a Loose Passive opponent (which may also be his typical opponent, I have no idea). With that in mind, he is correct - betting is much better than checking against a Loose Passive opponent. However, as the likelihood that the villain will bluff increases, check/calling also becomes increasingly more correct (for the reasons I’ve been stating all along). This principle is also from the same section in the Theory of Poker Entity is referring to.
I'm sold - Bet/Folding is a better line in this situation.

[tewall]

Yes, check-calling would be much better against a good player (I'm assuming tricky/aggresive = good). A good player won't be calling your river bet with a worse hand the requisite 55% to 60% of the time, but he might be induced to bluff, and a bluff raise is a real possibility.