Bad river fold?

[DavidC]

Hey guys.

This is from my first session of 2/4 at party. I'm still trying to get more comfortable there, because I mostly play the .5/1 tables.

I folded this river because the pot wasn't enormous and because I was following the premise that "a caller can not be bluffing."

It was 9bb back to me on the river, and I didn't know for sure that there was a 10% chance of me winning. What do you guys think?

Please comment on the entire hand if you notice anything on earlier streets.

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (9 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is SB with 9/images/graemlins/club.gif, A/images/graemlins/club.gif.
<font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, UTG+1 calls, MP1 calls, MP2 calls, <font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, Hero completes, BB checks.

Flop: (5 SB) 4/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 7/images/graemlins/club.gif, A/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(5 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, BB folds, UTG+1 calls, MP1 calls, MP2 folds.

Turn: (4 BB) 3/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, UTG+1 calls, MP1 calls.

River: (7 BB) T/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">UTG+1 bets</font>, MP1 calls, Hero folds.

Final Pot: 9 BB

[gaming_mouse]

Even with that scary heart, a better line on the river is to bet and fold to a re-raise.

However, given the way you played it, I think the fold was okay. If MP had not called, a call would be more clear.

gm

[DavidC]

Thanks for your help.

I'll give that a shot. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

OOC, why would you bet and fold to a raise, as opposed to check-calling or check-folding? Thing is, betting builds the pot, so if you do fold it's on a larger pot... but you're also more sure that you're hand is not good.

Anything you want to fill me in on? Or a post I could read or a section in SSHE or HPFAP?

If it were just one opp, I could call as you said, but since there's two, there's a possibility that someone just made two pair or that they have a better kicker, and they've called the guy with the flush with it. (as you know... just filling you in on my thought process here).

--Dave.

[brandon]

I dont like folding top pair on the river for 1 BB. If you played it this far, might as well finish it.

You will win at least 1/9 of time.

[AdamL]

One more vote here for bet and fold to a raise. If you check you should call imo.

[DavidC]

Results were:

Bettor had the flush.

Caller had ace with a worse kicker than I did. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I don't like the idea of calling just because I checked.

If it were HU, then yeah, definitely call if you check, even if the top card was a king and you just have ace-high.

However, once there is another caller involved, I don't really like the idea of calling after I check.

That being said, if you think I'll win it &gt; 10% of the time, it's profitable, so I should call.

It's worth noting that in this hand my call closes the action. Calling here has less risk than calling in the middle of the action.

I don't know if I like the idea of betting and folding to a raise, but I'll seriously consider it. I'm curious about what other hands the callers may have had... maybe a baby straight draw?

--Dave.

[me454555]

This is a HORRIBLE fold, and I really emphisize horrible. Theres no raise pf, no one bets into you on any street it was checked to the last person to bet on the river and you fold for 1 bet closing the action?!?!?!

Is there a chance that MP is bluffing? Is there a chance MP is betting a worse ace? You can't make these kinds of folds on the river if you want to be successful playing 2/4

On top of that, you must bet this river. The fact that there were no bets or raises tends to tell me that it is less like that a flush draw is out there. I'm writing this after reading the results but I still stick by my read the majority of the time. A flush draw shows some aggression on the flop and I think you need to be betting these rivers in these situations.

[holdemfan]

[ QUOTE ]
why would you bet and fold to a raise, as opposed to check-calling or check-folding? Thing is, betting builds the pot, so if you do fold it's on a larger pot... but you're also more sure that you're hand is not good.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you gave up the lead you signaled you didn't like the chances your hand held as much. This is a clear reason for someone to bet into you even if you have them beat. Your assumption of them catching the flush was correct but if you had been wrong you just gave them your money. By checking you said I surrender take the pot. By betting you say I still have a hand and the reraise would then allow you to decide that the opponent is likely to have you beat. You might find they also had an A or possibly less and they might have folded on the river. It wasn't terrible to check but if you are going to call anyway why not be the one to lead. If you are certain your beat its good but you can't tell here by checking.

[bisonbison]

You need to bet this river every goddamn time.

[pokerkai]

The fishies at 2/4 are dying to call you with a boatload of worse hands here. This is a clear river value bet.

And yes the caller isnt bluffing, but he sure as hell hasnt given you any reason at all to believe he has you beat. Call that down.

[DavidC]

re: results -- I'm sorry if I posted them prematurely. As it turns out, the guy that took it down had something like T2s of hearts for the flush. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I looked at the size of the pot, the number of opponents, and determined that my chances of winning were less than 10%. Several experienced members of the forum have indicated that I have greater than 10%. I'm willing to trust them until I see evidence to the contrary (over like 20k hands).

Based on reading the hand, we know that someone probably has a baby ace. Therefore, after the river check, if one of them is bluffing we can beat the caller. The person only has to be bluffing a little more than 10% of the time and we show a profit by calling, right?

Since the check shows weakness, that could induce a bluff perhaps 10% of the time.

I really appreciate the help you guys have given me.

So, I understand why I should call.

Why to bet the river?
-It could (very unlikely but possible)cause a hand that beats yours or ties yours to fold...
-There was no aggression on the flop which could indicate a flush draw...
-Worse hands could call that would not have bet.
-The caller has in no way indicated throughout the hand that he has me/us beat.

My thanks to those who have contributed to the thread, one more time. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

--Dave.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
You need to bet this river every goddamn time.

[/ QUOTE ]

BB, I respect the authority, but that doesn't really help my understanding.

In martial arts or the trades, you can say, "Do this and don't ask questions." People genuinely do learn by doing, and sometimes the process itself is educational.

In poker, though, the patterns that we immediately see don't necessarily correspond closely to those that we will see over a lifetime.

Therefore "learning by doing", or blindly obeying, is going to cause people to learn incorrect concepts, to develop bad habits and relies on generalities; it doesn't create good players.

However, I'd like to add that your notes on notes post rocks. Very helpful stuff.

--Dave.

Edit: As pokerkai pointed out, I have a tendancy to overanalyse, and I was almost out the door when I came back to add this:

It's not necessary to say "every goddamn time."

Since this is the SS forum, we assume that opponents are predictable, and not necessarily observant. Therefore varying our play doesn't pay off as it would if we were playing higher stakes against better opponents.

[pokerkai]

[ QUOTE ]
Why to bet the river?
-It could (very unlikely but possible)cause a hand that beats yours or ties yours to fold...
-There was no aggression on the flop which could indicate a flush draw...
-Worse hands could call that would not have bet.
-The caller has in no way indicated throughout the hand that he has me/us beat.



[/ QUOTE ]

Ummm...your trying too hard.
How bout, cuz youll often have the best hand.

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
Ummm...your trying too hard.
How bout, cuz youll often have the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought I said that, but sure. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I DO tend to try too hard, though. Sometimes there's more than meets the eye.

For example, your probability of having the best hand doesn't mean that you should bet it: they have to be willing to call with worse hands but unwilling to bet those same hands.

(I'm sure you know this, because you said it indirectly, but if _I_ don't try to think things through carefully, I could miss stuff like this.)

Again, thanks for your help. I'm new to the limit and I have no idea what people will call with just yet. Sometimes I think that they are playing the way I'm playing, which isn't the case!

I'm absolutely amazed by how brazen the players are at this level as compared to the .5/1 tables.

It appears to be a much more aggressive game without being too much tighter.

--Dave.

[bisonbison]

David,

To be more clear: reviewing this hand is like watching a happy antelope leaping and frolicking and running and kicking and then having an embolism and falling down dead.

On the flop: your hand will likely win, worse hands will call, few hands will raise, you don't want to see it get checked through, so you? Bet.

On the turn: your hand will likely win, worse hands will call, few hands will raise, you don't want to see it get checked through, so you? Bet.

On the river: your hand will likely win, worse hands will call, few hands will raise, you don't want to see it get checked through, so you? Bet.

But to bet, bet, check-fold with what is still going to be the best hand a good portion of the time is bad and ugly and an affront to G-d and his host of angels.

Also, fear not the flush.

[Cardzy]

[ QUOTE ]
David,

To be more clear: reviewing this hand is like watching a happy antelope leaping and frolicking and running and kicking and then having an embolism and falling down dead.

On the flop: your hand will likely win, worse hands will call, few hands will raise, you don't want to see it get checked through, so you? Bet.

On the turn: your hand will likely win, worse hands will call, few hands will raise, you don't want to see it get checked through, so you? Bet.

On the river: your hand will likely win, worse hands will call, few hands will raise, you don't want to see it get checked through, so you? Bet.

But to bet, bet, check-fold with what is still going to be the best hand a good portion of the time is bad and ugly and an affront to G-d and his host of angels.

Also, fear not the flush.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You need to bet this river every goddamn time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't said it before, but I will say it now. I absolutely LOVE your posts bison!!!!! They make my day. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[holdemfan]

[ QUOTE ]
But to bet, bet, check-fold with what is still going to be the best hand a good portion of the time is bad and ugly and an affront to G-d and his host of angels.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
"a caller can not be bluffing."

[/ QUOTE ]
This rule is intended for situations where you can only beat a bluff. That's not the case here as you have a pretty good hand.

This rule also needs to be applied with care in the presence of morons who call down with anything.

The idea of letting top pair go on this river for one bet is scary. Folding decent hands on the river is the worst leak there is in limit hold'em. Your hand is probably good half the time here. That means the EV of this fold (versus calling) is -4 BB. Nothing else you can do tops that.

Why bet the river?

1. When you are winning they will often call with hands they will not bet. Betting makes money.

2. When you are losing they will surely bet if you check. Betting and being called does not lose any more money than checking and calling.

Normally when you go first with a decent hand against typical LL players this is an overwhelming case and you must bet. "Typical" means they will call many more hands than they will bet.

[me454555]

B/c you might be up against a baby ace. This is a classic hand that will call if you bet but probobly check behind if you check to him.

There are many other hands that you can't induce a bluff from that you will beat so betting here is the best option.

[Rudbaeck]

I'm reading portions of BBs posts out loud to my wife, and even though she isn't a poker player she laughs until she has tears in her eyes.

[AdamL]

Szy he bets the river and is raised by the flush guy. Now, he doesn't know that guy has a flush, but either calling the raise or folding is much closer either way than not betting.

Anyone want to offer an analysis of this? I guess if the next guy folds, you might call. If he overcalls, you probably want to fold.

Is this correct?

When I'm calling, I feel like I'm calling those raises too often. When I'm folding, I feel like I'm being bluffed out too often. Which is most likely to be true?

[DavidC]

[ QUOTE ]
But to bet, bet, check-fold with what is still going to be the best hand a good portion of the time is bad and ugly and an affront to G-d and his host of angels.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough. I'll do my best in the future.