River decision in an unwanted pot

[StellarWind]

Party Poker 2/4 (9 players)

Unknown UTG calls, Multi-tabling TAG UTG+1 calls, Hero checks 64o in BB.

Flop: AJTr (3.5 SB, 3 players). All check.

Turn: 4 (matches the ten) (1.75 BB, 3 players). Hero checks intending to fold, all check.

River: 2 of flushes (1.75 BB, 3 players). Hero checks, UTG bets, UTG+1 folds, Hero calls.

[MarkD]

meh*. It's fine. I think betting the turn is also fine. The pot is so small that folding can't be too wrong either.

*Maybe I'm wrong but I feel as if this type of decision doesn't matter much to my bottom line.

[colgin]

Stellar,

I would be more tempted to call if it was UTG+1 betting on the end rather than UTG as it is here, but I might still fold. Here I definitely fold. Yes, you are getting decent odds here to call with your pair, but with the type of passive opponents seemingly on display here the river will often get checked around here if nobody has anything. My sense is that your hand is not good often enough to warrant calling here even getting 2.75:1. I don't think the UTG is either bluffing or betting bottom pair often enough given the way he/she played the prior rounds. More likely he caught his backdoor flush or decided his Jx or Tx or medium pair might be good.

[Joe Tall]

Value bet the river, yes.

Peace,
Joe Tall

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
I would be more tempted to call if it was UTG+1 betting on the end rather than UTG as it is here, but I might still fold. Here I definitely fold.

[/ QUOTE ]
You would prefer to have a live player behind you? I wouldn't have thought of it that way.

I thought about UTG+1 while I was driving home. His Poker Tracker stats look a lot like me. Just a bit tighter and less aggressive postflop, but very similar. I cannot think of any hand he could limp with that I can beat except 33 or possibly K9s.

[ QUOTE ]
but with the type of passive opponents seemingly on display here the river will often get checked around here if nobody has anything ... I don't think the UTG is either bluffing or betting bottom pair often enough given the way he/she played the prior rounds.

[/ QUOTE ]
You realize this is circular reasoning? He checked twice, therefore he must be passive. He's passive, therefore he could have checked twice with a decent hand?

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
Value bet the river, yes.

Peace,
Joe Tall

[/ QUOTE ]

what worse hand is gunna call you?

[StellarWind]

MarkD, my feeling is that a lot of money is won and lost (EV of mistakes) in the play of these little unwanted pots. They come up all the time and often the entire pot is up for grabs. With larger pots it's usually just a bet or two at stake.

Yet we don't discuss this type of hand very much. I think that is because very few of us are comfortable that we know what we are doing. There are opinions but few convincing arguments.

That's just my 2c. I don't know the answers either, but I want to learn more about these situations. On to the actual hand.

As I mentioned in a previous post, TAG UTG+1's play is hard to understand. A tight caller from UTG+1 cannot completely miss this flop. There isn't a hand on my play list that doesn't make at least a pair. He plays much more than I do and probably had a read on UTG. PT stats from after the session reveal that UTG is a calling station. So perhaps that explains UTG+1's reluctance to take a swipe on the flop or turn. Nevertheless, I think he folded a better hand than mine. Likely he flopped fourth pair and figured it was hopeless.

When I posted this hand I felt awkward about my decision to check the river. My idea was that more better hands would give a free showdown than worse hands would call. I also hoped to pick up a bet from someone finally bluffing at the pot. Now that I've thought more about UTG+1's hand I realize that there was a much better reason not to bet. The pot is much too small to call or overcall him on the river.

Calling UTG is more reasonable but only because it was possible that he was a more aggressive player than he turned out to be. If I had known he was a calling station I should have let it go.

Fortunately ignorance is sometimes bliss. UTG had K2o and MHIG.

Thanks for the comments.

[MarkD]

[ QUOTE ]
They come up all the time and often the entire pot is up for grabs. With larger pots it's usually just a bet or two at stake.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't find that these hands come up very often - maybe I just don't play enough poker. But as far as the rest of the statement goes you are essentially saying the same thing - this pot was only a bet or two, so it's the same as discussing a big pot where we are talking about a bet or two. But this is a tiny pot and in a lot of these tiny pots we are the ones betting at them - at least I am. I think I win a lot of these small pots with a turn bet.

I still don't see these hands as being worth very much since IMO they don't occur very often. I will keep my eye open for them in the future though because maybe I'm just being naieve.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
this pot was only a bet or two, so it's the same as discussing a big pot where we are talking about a bet or two.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well this pot finished at 3.75 BB. That is a little more than a bet or two and I think it's typical.

A related concept is the EV-cost of unwanted-pot mistakes tends to be fairly high because these are turn and river decisions. Call two cold preflop with any plausible hand and the loss is much less than 1 BB because there are five cards to come and you will often win. Do the wrong thing on the turn or river and there is often no way out. Your Sklansky-loss is the full amount at stake. The small pot size even wipes away the "how wrong can calling one bet be?" excuse.

Frequency could be stakes-dependent with 2/4 being the maximum. The hands I am thinking of usually have 3-4 players and no PFR. Then the flop checks through and the pot becomes unwanted. Decent micro games have more limpers in a typical pot. Higher games have more PFRs and more speculative flop bets.

But I'm sure these pots are a staple at any level and knowing what to do must be worth quite a little bit. A good small stakes player should be beyond the point where fixing one or two leaks turns his whole win rate around. His leaks are smaller and more subtle than that. I look around and say "what's next" and this looks like relatively unexplored territory. Common enough to matter with often difficult decisions that carry a substantial EV cost for being wrong.

Anyway, I think it's more important than another iteration of the turn raise play /images/graemlins/wink.gif. I don't mean to overstate my point.

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
meh*. It's fine. I think betting the turn is also fine. The pot is so small that folding can't be too wrong either.

*Maybe I'm wrong but I feel as if this type of decision doesn't matter much to my bottom line.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't bet this turn. People will call with Ts and Js that might not have bet the flop. Once the river comes, a call is fine.
-James

[witeknite]

As I think about it, I'm leaning towards betting the turn. If the players are weak-tight enough to check through a J or T on the flop because of the A, then they might fold the turn to a bet. Also, a turn bet might look like a response to a wiffed C/R attemp on the flop.

If you bet the turn and someone raises, fold. If one or both call, I'm thinking I check/call that river.

WiteKnite