The song of position

Did I say be tight? Well...by that I mean everywhere except for the button when everyone folded to you.


That was the case and I open-raised with Q4.


Only BB defended, a reasonable player (SB was tight BTW).


Flop is KK3 and the turn is a 9. Both rounds where check-called by him.


The river is a 4. He checked, I bet, he called.


Comments?

You win with the fours and your opponent is weak and passive and has a 3, or worse no pair at all.

How would you have played ace high for instance (if you were BB)?


Would you bet the river if the 3 was a 7?


Regards

You haven't given nearly enough information especially for what ifs. 5 handed? Stakes? If this is 5 handed than blinds generally defend more than in a full ring. If this is higher stakes players are a lot more agressive and less likely to be weak.


A "reasonable" player means nothing to me passive or agressive, tough or weak these are things I would need to know.


With no information at all, I would have played the hand exactly as you did and put them on 3x or

AX where a typical opponent will not reraise with less than A10. But those are just the games I play in.


As for KK7 instead of KK3 I would definitely not bet the river with that hand against any "reasonable" opponent (what possible second best hand would be worth calling only AX and 22 and 33 and most of the AX should reraise preflop).


If I had AX depending on what kind of player you are, and since I know nothing of your play, I would either reraise prelop and bet flop. Or just call your raise and go for the checkraise on the turn.


Alternatively, I might fold pre-flop or fold on the turn if I check-called on the flop and the turn was bet. There is little chance I am going to check-call all the way with like A8 or lower its way too passive for my style. Calling a river bet with that hand is totally blind not the way I want to play poker.


I might play A3 that way against a dangerous overagressive opponent in this spot though.

Sorry for not giving enough info, but since this is a shorthanded forum, I thought it would speak for itself. The game was 5 handed.


I think the stakes dont matter, only your opponents, and this opponent was, as I said, reasonable. That means, he played fairly tight, and I havent seen him doing anything stupid or brilliant. That's all the information I had. As always in shorthanded, it's a mix of passiveness and aggression, of tighness and looseness. So, again, a reasonable player is to me a player who understands that, and applies it.


"As for KK7 instead of KK3 I would definitely not bet the river with that hand against any "reasonable" opponent (what possible second best hand would be worth calling only AX and 22 and 33 and most of the AX should reraise preflop)."


I think you should still bet, and that's why I posted this hand. I see so many players fail to make these thin value bets. Online, people will call with a lot of hands. Ax for instance. Almost all players I know DONT reraise a buttonraise with that. And often they are correct to not raise IMO. Ax is a recipe for disaster out of position (in position it's soooo different). Because what if you dont flop your ace? What if you flop your x which often happens to be third pair. While out of position this puts you often in a tough spot. That's why I think reraising the button with an x lower than lets say 9/T is not a good move. Unless the button folded and SB raised. Totally different situation then.


But anyway, I dont think Ax should and will reraise preflop a lot of the times. I think if he held a 7 he would play it more aggressively. Why? Because he's out of position.


So, now, on the river. In all likelyhood he has Ax. To use Tommy's words: give him the rope to hang himself.


That's IMO what a lot of my opponents fail to do.


"Alternatively, I might fold pre-flop or fold on the turn if I check-called on the flop and the turn was bet. There is little chance I am going to check-call all the way with like A8 or lower its way too passive for my style. Calling a river bet with that hand is totally blind not the way I want to play poker."


I think if you fold Ax preflop in this spot, then your postflop game is not well enough, because it's definately worth a call IMO. Enough strength in this hand if you play it reasonable well (hey...again reasonable ;-)


Check-calling and then check-folding is a huge mistake IMO. It's one of the huge mistakes I talked about in a different post.


Betting the flop....hmmm...you're likely to get raised by me on this board. Or maybe called. Or maybe called and raised on the turn. To many options for me on this kind of board to make you fold.


So, what do you have to do? IMO it's to put yourself in a spot where you dont have to fold with Ax. So check-call. The whole way. (This is all asuming the button is a good player. This might not have been the case however).


Regards

Think about betting with thin values with a board

like K K 7 9 4


slowplay KX-99-77(10% chance)-4 BETS * 0.1= -0.4

or Big Pocket Pairs

9X (10% Chance) -2 BETS * 0.1= -0.2

7X (10% Chance) -2 BETS * 0.1= -0.2

55,66,44,88 (10% Chance) -2 BETS * 0.1= -0.2


-------------------------------------------------


A2/A3/A7/A8/A9 (40% Chance) +2 BETS * 0.4 = +0.8

22/33 and 4X

-------------------------------------------------

A4 You tie and (20%) + 0 = +0.0

QX JX and Lower(Fold ) + 0 = +0.0

-------------------------------------------------


You can play with the percentages if you like, this assumes you will call the checkraise on the river and also assumes the opponents won't checkraise you on the turn with any of the other hands that beat you. I think what I present here is much closer to your read than it would be to mine. But even still you are behind by -0.2Bets.


Also stakes are a huge FACTOR to me, at a 3/6 5 MAX table I would put the 9X and 7X percentages as well as the fold percentages much higher and you would be even more negative.

OK, I have a huge problem with your calculations.


First, paying of a river check-raise seems stupidity, because I'm virtually sure that this opponents is not capable of doing that with less than a four. Such a bluff, if he's capable of that, would have come on the turn, or, maybe, a bet on the river. But no way a check-raise. So no paying of that one.


Second, how did you arrive the percentages? To me they seem totally out of thin air. Based on handreading? Based on Bayes Theorem (the latter seems impossible to me, because (havent done caluclations) Ax should be a lot higher IMO)?


For instance, you give the Kx-99-77 a 10% chance (also an indication this could not be based on Bayes Theorem). Using your 4 bets (which should be 2 bets) this means these hands will play the hand call, check-call, check-call, check-raise. Now first, do you really think 99,77 would play that way? (IMO the likelyhood of these hands playing it different on a street are close to 100%). The Kx would be the only hand possible to play it that way (although I would still guess he would check-raise the turn), so I would fold to the check-raise.


I dont understand why you came up with these "calculations". The uncertainties in them are so big, that I think they dont support any argument.


Because it's seems so important: this was a Paradise 5/10 5 max table. What does this make different? (giving my previous description of the player).


Thanks for your responses.


Regards