A4s river decision. [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

bisonbison

12-09-2004, 03:40 PM

MP1 is laggy.
MP2 is a bit loose and very passive preflop. He's also passive postflop.

Party Poker 3/6 Hold'em (9 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is UTG+1 with A/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 4/images/graemlins/spade.gif.
1 fold, Hero calls, MP1 raises, 1 fold, MP3 calls, 4 folds, Hero calls.

Flop: (7.33 SB) 7/images/graemlins/club.gif, A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 4/images/graemlins/club.gif (3 players)
Hero checks, MP1 bets, MP3 raises, Hero 3-bets, MP1 folds, MP3 calls.

Turn: (7.16 BB) Q/images/graemlins/club.gif (2 players)
Hero bets, MP3 calls.

River: (9.16 BB) 6/images/graemlins/club.gif (2 players)
Hero bets, MP3 raises, Hero folds.

Final Pot: 12.16 BB

Chaos_ult

12-09-2004, 03:42 PM

I think that's how I would have played it. I just can't see checking that river. That pretty much invites a bluff. Standard IMHO.

bisonbison

12-09-2004, 03:45 PM

I just can't see checking that river. That pretty much invites a bluff.

What's wrong with inviting a bluff?

imaptone

12-09-2004, 03:46 PM

What's your reasoning for not check calling the river? For the same amount of money you get to see the cards.

Chaos_ult

12-09-2004, 03:48 PM

Hm, I guess I don't have any reasoning for not check/calling the river. But I don't think there's anything wrong with betting, as long as you can fold to a raise.

Rico Suave

12-09-2004, 03:48 PM

Bison:

Seems like the perfect opponent to make this river bet / fold to a raise play.

--Rico

runa

12-09-2004, 03:51 PM

MP2=MP3 in your read?

The hand looks good except the river bears some thought.

You lose if you are called on the river pretty much, but your hand does have some showdown value. Is checking and calling better than betting since a low /images/graemlins/club.gif probably won't fold, if he doesn't have a club he'll fold, and you might be able to induce a bluff from a worse non /images/graemlins/club.gif hand?

sthief09

12-09-2004, 03:55 PM

handsome

aas

12-09-2004, 03:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
What's your reasoning for not check calling the river? For the same amount of money you get to see the cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

With the amout of strength that hero has shown so far, and MP3 being read as passive (assuming bisonbison realy meant MP3 by MP2 in his reads), I don't think you need to see the cards. A bet might cause a baby flush to fold.

colgin

12-09-2004, 04:00 PM

bison,

I question whether you want to limp with A4s in EP with a laggy player to your immediate left but perhaps the overall table texture justifies it.

As for the rest of the hand you played it perfectly. I see no point in spending 1 BB on the river to see the A /images/graemlins/club.gif. Against a different player you might want to check the river in the hopes of catching a bluff, but against the loose-passive type you describe, if the Clarkmeister rule is ever going to apply in a situation it is going to be this one.

Nice hand; sh*tty river.

Chaos_ult

12-09-2004, 04:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
With the amout of strength that hero has shown so far, and MP3 being read as passive (assuming bisonbison realy meant MP3 by MP2 in his reads), I don't think you need to see the cards. A bet might cause a baby flush to fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's basically what I was thinking. I just didn't know how to word it. No wonder my girlfriend thinks I have a communication problem.

aas

12-09-2004, 04:00 PM

I wouldn't limp UTG+1 with a lag on my left. (I don't know how lag is a laggy player though).

me454555

12-09-2004, 04:02 PM

Looks like the clarkmeister theorum is in full effect. Well played.

bisonbison

12-09-2004, 04:09 PM

When I am describing players, a lag is someone who is loose and aggressive, but not superloose and not superaggressive.

This guy (in 40 hands) was 38%VPIP and 12% raise. He's not a maniac. He doesn't raise every hand preflop. He's just a LAG.

runa

12-09-2004, 04:12 PM

Can you fix your reads on the hand? I think we have them all mixed up and that changes things significantly.

James282

12-09-2004, 04:16 PM

Perfect.
-James

bisonbison

12-09-2004, 04:18 PM

it's too late to edit, and I really don't think it's that confusing. MP1 is MP1 and MP2 is the other guy in the hand.

runa

12-09-2004, 04:19 PM

I think the aggression you've shown thus far spells out a made hand. There is a small chance you have the A of clubs or another high club but I don't think it matches with your aggression on previous streets. Your opponent is described as a lag so I think there is some merit in checking and calling, and I also think you won't get a small club to fold in this spot. Clarkie is my hero and all, but if your reads are right I think there's a good chance you're still ahead by the river, can induce a bluff and minimize losses if you suspect he might raise with a lone club.

runa

12-09-2004, 04:21 PM

I think we took your loose passive read to mean MP3, who you are heads up on the river with and not the LAG you mentioned just recently, labeled as MP1 in the original post.

bisonbison

12-09-2004, 04:25 PM

I think we took your loose passive read to mean MP3, who you are heads up on the river with and not the LAG you mentioned just recently, labeled as MP1 in the original post.

Right.

CinnamonWind

12-09-2004, 04:39 PM

If he had a baby flush I think you'd have seen a turn raise. If he has one regardless of this, he's not folding it. So the bet on the river doesn't really accomplish much but giving your opponent an opportunity.

You've telegraphed a made hand through your betting, so what is he confident enough to raise you with on the river? The A /images/graemlins/club.gif or K /images/graemlins/club.gif most likely. I think this is one of those rare occassions where I advocate not betting. It lets him bluff at you if he doesn't have a club, and you see the showdown for one bet. You also have to think about the possibility that he is river-raise bluffing as well, perhaps on as little as two pair. A check/call lets you see the showdown and avoids this possibility.

larrondo

12-09-2004, 04:46 PM

Terribly sorry, what is the Clarkmeister Theorum?

Six_of_One

12-09-2004, 04:52 PM

I would fold pretty much 100% of the time pre-flop in this spot in Party's 3/6 game, especially with only 9 players.

I'd also check-call the river, though I couldn't say whether that is a good play or not. My reasoning is, there's a pretty good chance MP3 has got an Ace, which means it's either A /images/graemlins/heart.gif or A /images/graemlins/club.gif. Given that much risk of being raised and having to fold, I'd prefer to see the showdown.

Chaos_ult

12-09-2004, 04:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
if he had a baby flush I think you'd have seen a turn raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless he didn't make it until the river.

MarkD

12-09-2004, 04:55 PM

Well played on all streets. I assume you know the game conditions and whether the pre-flop limp is correct or not. I fold in some games and call in others - but post-flop is perfect.

CinnamonWind

12-09-2004, 05:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if he had a baby flush I think you'd have seen a turn raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unless he didn't make it until the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ehm, a made baby obviously. Usually people don't "make" baby flushes on a 4 suited river. That's just called "having a low card of that suit on a 4 flush board". A "baby flush" usually connotes someone playing suited baby cards and hitting 3 of that suit.

Fat Nicky

12-09-2004, 05:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I just can't see checking that river. That pretty much invites a bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there's a reason for checking the river here, inviting a bluff would be the reason.

Chaos_ult

12-09-2004, 05:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Usually people don't "make" baby flushes on a 4 suited river. That's just called "having a low card of that suit on a 4 flush board".

[/ QUOTE ]

Semantics. The decision is not on the turn, but on the river.

Fat Nicky

12-09-2004, 05:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You lose if you are called on the river pretty much, but your hand does have some showdown value. Is checking and calling better than betting since a low probably won't fold, if he doesn't have a club he'll fold, and you might be able to induce a bluff from a worse non hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

His read is exactly the reason why to bet this river instead of check/call. His opponent is loose-passive. This type of player does not bluff, but they will pay off with hands worse than hero's 2 pair.

CinnamonWind

12-09-2004, 05:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Usually people don't "make" baby flushes on a 4 suited river. That's just called "having a low card of that suit on a 4 flush board".

[/ QUOTE ]

Semantics. The decision is not on the turn, but on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, not semantics at all. If the player had a low flush made on 4th street, I think our Hero would have seen a raise. That makes it more probable that the Villian was drawing to one club, and thus that he likely has a high club. Even terrible players don't often draw to low clubs here, and if they were bad enough to do that, you'd have no chance of knocking them off it on the river with a bet anyways, so you'd be beaten and called if you bet.

The question was whether betting on the river might get a baby flush to fold, and my argument is that not only would it take a very tight player for this, you'd almost have to have seen a turn raise if the Villian did indeed hold a baby flush (on 4th).

This is a classic example of a river bet where the only ways you get called are if you're probably beaten, and you really don't want to see a raise. Check and call, letting a possible bluffer bluff and seeing the showdown for only one more bet, without getting yourself into this sticky spot.

Sixth_Rule

12-09-2004, 05:26 PM

I think the turn bet is really bad because i don't see him folding any better hands and i also don't see him calling anything worse then your hand mostly becasue it dson't look like he has two pair. it is quite probable that he has TP medium to good kicker.

A better way spend a bet is to check call.

here is a break down of why check calling here is better

He has Ax,KK..TT no clubs no two pair:
BET and he folds CHECK and he checks you win the same amount
OR you check and he bets on a bluff and you call and you win one extra bet

he has Ax,KK..TT with a A or K of club:
BET and he raises you fold, CHECK and He bets you call and lose the same amount

He has Ax,KK..TT with Q or lower of /images/graemlins/club.gif :
you BET he calls or raises (you fold) You CHECK and he checks you save a bet he bets you call and you lose the same as when you bet first.

Chaos_ult

12-09-2004, 05:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
That makes it more probable that the Villian was drawing to one club, and thus that he likely has a high club

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm really at a loss as to how you deduced that the villain was drawing to a high club, and not a low one.
Why can't he have an ace on the flop?
What about a mid pair? I've seen stranger things.

CinnamonWind

12-09-2004, 05:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That makes it more probable that the Villian was drawing to one club, and thus that he likely has a high club

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm really at a loss as to how you deduced that the villain was drawing to a high club, and not a low one.
Why can't he have an ace on the flop?
What about a mid pair? I've seen stranger things.

[/ QUOTE ]

I deduced that it was "more probable" that he was drawing to a high club. Big difference.

His turn call does make it more probable. I hope you see why.

Chaos_ult

12-09-2004, 05:37 PM

More probable if he's drawing to clubs at all, agreed.

feelixthegreek

12-09-2004, 05:39 PM

CinnamonWind

12-09-2004, 05:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
More probable if he's drawing to clubs at all, agreed.

[/ QUOTE ]

What high club would he be raising the flop with? Then he gets reraised and backs off, perhaps afraid of his kicker?

These are rhetorical questions, designed to illuminate, not player-hate.

Chaos_ult

12-09-2004, 05:45 PM

Right, but this is all assuming that the villain has a club. I think I was just trying to point out, in my original reply to you, was that the villain was more likely (if he has a club at all) drawing to a single club. Miscomunication on my part, I guess. That tends to happen a lot with me /images/graemlins/smile.gif

bisonbison

12-09-2004, 05:47 PM

What sort of table do you require to open limp a weak suited ace like this one? I ask because I've been tightening up pre-flop in EP with hands like this, but I'm not sure when it is appropriate to play them. What were the conditions to make this an acceptable limp?

At the time, I'm sure the limp made some sort of sense: loose players on my left made over-limping likely, not a super-aggressive table... I dunno.

Sometimes I just say "ME HAVE PRETTY HAND ME LIMP."

runa

12-09-2004, 05:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
When I am describing players, a lag is someone who is loose and aggressive, but not superloose and not superaggressive.

This guy (in 40 hands) was 38%VPIP and 12% raise. He's not a maniac. He doesn't raise every hand preflop. He's just a LAG.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't understand why you would even mention this unless the reads were mixed up and MP3 is a LAP not a LAG. Betting the river seems correct against the former and not the latter. So just for absolute clarity (and set my confused azz straight) MP3 is a LAP not a LAG?

EDIT: mixed up LAP and LAG....

Also, I thought Clarkie's theorem is more specifically applied when you have no chance of winning whatsoever if called, i.e. your hand has no showdown value barring getting called by any club. The combined possibility of getting better hands to fold in that instance would be well worth the single bet, whereas I can picture more than a few hands that are worse that bet here.

Joe Tall

12-09-2004, 05:51 PM

Open limping in front of a LAG w/A4s blows, fold.

The rest is well played.

Peace,
Joe Tall

bisonbison

12-09-2004, 05:57 PM

I didn't understand why you would even mention this unless the reads were mixed up...

Cause someone said "I don't know how laggy a lag is" or somesuch.

So just for absolute clarity (and set my confused azz straight) MP3 is a LAP not a LAG?

My head hurts. MP1 is a LAG, MP3 is the other guy described in the first post.