KJo topic.. i know some of you guys hate this hand

[btspider]

I feel like posting a hand and i haven't played much lately so its slim pickings. My only question would be the river. Would a flush draw miss, but pair up often enough to reach the 55% good when called #. If I bet, I'm folding to a check-raise obviously.

My VPIP/PFR with KJo is currently at 41/34. If this hand is boring, post/ask some KJo related questions.

UTG+1 - 44 VPIP/13 PFR
MP2 - 49 VPIP/14 PFR
SB - 41 VPIP/5 PFR, passive postflop

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (10 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is Button with K/images/graemlins/heart.gif, J/images/graemlins/diamond.gif.
<font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, UTG+1 calls, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, MP2 calls, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, SB calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, UTG+1 calls, MP2 calls.

Flop: (9 SB) J/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 9/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 2/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
SB checks, UTG+1 checks, <font color="#CC3333">MP2 bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, SB calls, UTG+1 folds, MP2 calls.

Turn: (7.50 BB) 8/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
SB checks, MP2 checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, SB calls, MP2 folds.

River: (9.50 BB) T/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
SB checks, Hero ????

[davelin]

I think I'm in the bet/fold camp.

[Milky]

I think I agree.

[toss]

I like the raises PF and on the Flop. I'd check behind on the river, I don't see him calling enough for you to river value bet. And I think you'll be seeing the bottom end of a straight the times he does call.

[Shillx]

Bet: He checked to you on the river with a 4 straight on board. He has no reason to think that you have a straight, so he would probably bet if he has you beat (he knows that you see how scary the board is). Most people bet 4 straights in 1st position on the river. You can easily fold if check/raised.

Check: He will only call me with a hand that beats me. He isn't calling with a busted draw or maybe not even with a small pair. If he had something like a straight draw or a jack on the flop, he probably made at least 2 pair, so he has the perfect hand to check/call with. He is really passive so he might check a straight to me because he hates to bet.

Meh, bet.

Brad

[wabe]

Why do this instead of checking behind? Isn't this a way ahead/way behind thing?

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do this instead of checking behind? Isn't this a way ahead/way behind thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's really close either way. Even with the 4 straight ton the board, I've seen opponents call with small pair.

[Greg J]

Put me in the river value bet camp.

The only thing I don't do that you did is raise pf -- I usually limp here. Not that raising is bad.

[jogger08152]

You should not bet, but if you do, you should call a check-raise.

You'll see some bluffs here, unless you know this to be a timid player. Note that if he called your preflop raise with a Jack in his hand, he most likely has you beat (slim chance you're tied) with J7, J8, J9, JT, JJ (unlikely, of course), JQ or JA (or even J2!)).

The hands you're beating include 2 diamonds that do not include the 7, the Q, or exactly T8, and I doubt he calls with Ace high here (if that was one of his diamonds). Possible he's calling you with middle pair as well I suppose. (Tho again, many "reasonable" 9's or T's he could have called with preflop have you beat with a straight or 2 pair.) Note that the likelihood that he holds the 8 or T of diamonds = the likelihood that he holds the 7 or Q of diamonds. So no, you don't appear to have +55% here, and it's even worse if you'll fold to a check-raise.

Without a read that he'd call with any pocket pair or any Ace, I check behind here.

[Smasharoo]

Bet/fold.

Stop raising KJ on the button after two limpers pf.

[btspider]

does anyone's opinion change if MP2 is my river opponent? e.g. fear a check-call from a scared two-pair?

SB's cold-call on the flop feels like a T9 (rivered two-pair), some kind of straight draw (which would have hit), or hopefully a flush draw which one-paired along the way or a weak J that somehow missed its kicker.. leaving J6, J5, J4, J3 as the Jx's which I beat.

[MarkL444]

[ QUOTE ]
Bet/fold.

Stop raising KJ on the button after two limpers pf.

[/ QUOTE ]

both limpers are over 40 vpip

[Shillx]

MP2 makes this is much easier bet.

With the passive player checking, it pretty much comes down to him either calling or folding small pairs. If he will call with any pair, then it is a bet. If will fold these hands then it is a check.

Brad

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]

Stop raising KJ on the button after two limpers pf.

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF?

Yeah, bet-fold this river homie, unless there is some chance he is capable of a bluff checkraise.

Rob

[btspider]

[ QUOTE ]
Bet/fold.

Stop raising KJ on the button after two limpers pf.

[/ QUOTE ]

did you see their juicy VPIP? i want dead money from the blinds and the initiative to bowl these guys over if I miss.

[ QUOTE ]
greg j: The only thing I don't do that you did is raise pf -- I usually limp here. Not that raising is bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

notice my PF stats with KJo. the non-PFR VPIP is mostly from SB completions. i raise it in MP3+ after weak limpers.

i hope both of you guys are at least raising KQo here.

[Shillx]

Huh? Pretty much any hand that our hero is going to play should be for a raise after 2 loose limpers (minus small pairs if he chooses to call with them).

KJ is an undervalued hand IMO. This is an easy raise.

Brad

[Entity]

This is an easy-cheesey-japaneesey raise in this spot, especially against these limpers.

[btspider]

alrighty, since everyone is paying attention to the topic right now.. i'll post dem results:

----------------- RESULTS -----------------
I checked /images/graemlins/confused.gif and he tables Q7o for the 6 card straight and rivered gutshot.
----------------- RESULTS -----------------

i'm a bit surprised by all the river bet comments. i really figured this guy for a better hand or missed flush which may not even call if he even paired. hmm...

[Shillx]

Exactly why you bet the river. If he is dumb enough to call all the way with no pair and no draw, he is probably dumb enough to call on the end with anything.

Brad

[droolie]

I check this river. I lose interest in river value betting on a four str8 board. I don't like value betting when I have to fold to a raise. Best case scenario is you win an extra BB some of the time. Worst case has you chucking a winner some of the time. I see this as -EV while calling is nuetral. Folding to a bluff is not an option if you check and checking gets you out of this ugly hand without any more cost. Have I told you guys how much I hate folding?

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
Have I told you guys how much I hate folding?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. I think it might be a leak. You're missing out on far more value bets than you are being bluff-checkraised out of a pot.

Rob

[VBM]

interesting. so Rob, how do you play it if he leads the river?

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
interesting. so Rob, how do you play it if he leads the river?

[/ QUOTE ]

Call.

It's a lot more common that you'll see a bluff-bet with a 4-straight on the river than a bluff-checkraise. Part of the reason we can afford to value bet risky rivers like this is because we're also afforded the ability, by deciding in advance, to fold to a raise.

Rob

[cold_cash]

[ QUOTE ]
I check this river. I lose interest in river value betting on a four str8 board. I don't like value betting when I have to fold to a raise. Best case scenario is you win an extra BB some of the time. Worst case has you chucking a winner some of the time. I see this as -EV while calling is nuetral. Folding to a bluff is not an option if you check and checking gets you out of this ugly hand without any more cost. Have I told you guys how much I hate folding?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not thinking about this the right way. If you always check in spots like this you're letting your opponents show down their crappy hands for free; hands that they would have called a bet with.

Especially when your opponents are usually so loose, not betting adds up quickly. I know for a fact that the SB in this hand would call a bet with hands like A9, A9, K8, KT, etc. The times he has these hands are going to be more numerous than the times he has the straight, and when you check it behind him you let him off the hook.

Add to that the fact that the amount of times you're going to get check-raise bluffed by a worse hand, especially by a non-tricky/passive player, is miniscule. You should be able to toss this in the muck and sleep very well at night.

[toss]

Hmmm I think I should RVB more then. Reading ToP makes me want to induce bluffs in the wrongest places lol.

[droolie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I check this river. I lose interest in river value betting on a four str8 board. I don't like value betting when I have to fold to a raise. Best case scenario is you win an extra BB some of the time. Worst case has you chucking a winner some of the time. I see this as -EV while calling is nuetral. Folding to a bluff is not an option if you check and checking gets you out of this ugly hand without any more cost. Have I told you guys how much I hate folding?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're not thinking about this the right way. If you always check in spots like this you're letting your opponents show down their crappy hands for free; hands that they would have called a bet with.

Especially when your opponents are usually so loose, not betting adds up quickly. I know for a fact that the SB in this hand would call a bet with hands like A9, A9, K8, KT, etc. The times he has these hands are going to be more numerous than the times he has the straight, and when you check it behind him you let him off the hook.

Add to that the fact that the amount of times you're going to get check-raise bluffed by a worse hand, especially by a non-tricky/passive player, is miniscule. You should be able to toss this in the muck and sleep very well at night.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you value bet a four-flush board in the same situation? I'm all for value betting and folding the river when the board is much "safer looking". The safer looking the board the less likely a bluff check-raise. You're certainly correct that villian will call with many inferior hands here but I just think 4-flush and 4-str8 boards are the wrong time to do this, especially in position. The bluff possibility goes way up combined with the chances we're behind makes me look for a better spot. It seems the % of time I'm earning an extra bet is not high enough here. HU makes this decision close though. With 2 opponents I think checking is clearly better.

When the choice between value betting and checking behind is close, I chose checking. Why? I like making players whiff on a ligitimate check-raise. I'm not sure if this has any real poker value but I smile when I know they're pissed they missed getting those extra bets out of me. I also think it encourage them to play more ABC against me in future hands and I get to see what they're playing every time. This has some value to me as I think it gives me an edge in future hands.

Not surprisingly my W$SD is lower than most of yours (51%). It may be a leak but it's very difficult to change. I just see so many wacky hands being shown down that putting my cards on the table cheaply seems like a better route than folding the river to a raise. I've had so many surprises at showdown that nothing surprises me anymore.

[Entity]

Droolie,

I dunno, it sounds like a pretty significant leak in your game. 51%W$SD isn't bad, but is a bit on the low side; probably paying off too many checkraises or making marginal overcalls on the river.

5-handed, I probably check this. 2-handed, I bet it; especially because a checkraise is 99.9999% never a bluff there, given the fact that there are two people for the checkraiser to worry about.

What it comes down to is this: if I have a hand that figures to be better than the hands I put my opponents on, and I know they'll call with worse hands (despite how obviously scary the board is), I'll bet. I'm quicker to bet out of position, but in position, it's rare that I check. The ability to easily, painlessly fold to a checkraise from most of these players (note that I'll check if I have a read on the player as tricky, or as having high river aggression) makes it easier for me to make many many many more slim value bets, and to eek out just that much more value from my hands.

If I'm so mentally attached that I must call a checkraise, I won't bet very often. I just don't allow myself to get in that "must call" position very often anymore.

Rob

[jediael]

Some people here must be kidding.

Who honestly thinks that Hero wins more than 50% of the time when called?

[Hack]

He doesn't have to win 50% of the time to make it profitable.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
He doesn't have to win 50% of the time to make it profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

To make his bet profitable he does.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]

Who honestly thinks that Hero wins more than 50% of the time when called?

[/ QUOTE ]

Me. And quite a few other winning players, I'd imagine. Either you don't play microlimits or you're just beginning at these levels if you haven't realized what trash they'll call with.

Rob

[Hack]

Not true. If someone has a 9 or a weaker jack and has called all the way chances are they are not folding for one more bet. It's much more likely that they have a 9 or jack without a straight than they do some straight without any part of the board. It's possible that they had J7 or 97 but the chances o f them having a queen or 7 in this situation is not very high.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
Some people here must be kidding.

Who honestly thinks that Hero wins more than 50% of the time when called?

[/ QUOTE ]

When just called? I think Hero will win more than 50% of the time here.

[Hack]

If Hero is just called here I think he wins more than 75% of the time. If he is raised the pct drops dramatically.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
Not true. If someone has a 9 or a weaker jack and has called all the way chances are they are not folding for one more bet. It's much more likely that they have a 9 or jack without a straight than they do some straight without any part of the board. It's possible that they had J7 or 97 but the chances o f them having a queen or 7 in this situation is not very high.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your statement confuses me. We're talking about the validity of the value bet itself. If Hero bets and will be called or check-raised by a better hand over 50% of the time, it wasn't a good value bet.

[Hack]

And I'm saying I don't think it will happen 50% of the time. and TPGK is a very good hand.

I think it's more likely the villain calls down with a weaker Jack or a 9 or anything that hero beats when compared to the likeliness of being check-raised or villain calling down with a better hand.

That's what I'm saying.

[droolie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not true. If someone has a 9 or a weaker jack and has called all the way chances are they are not folding for one more bet. It's much more likely that they have a 9 or jack without a straight than they do some straight without any part of the board. It's possible that they had J7 or 97 but the chances o f them having a queen or 7 in this situation is not very high.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your statement confuses me. We're talking about the validity of the value bet itself. If Hero bets and will be called or check-raised by a better hand over 50% of the time, it wasn't a good value bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well put!

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
And I'm saying I don't think it will happen 50% of the time. and TPGK is a very good hand.

I think it's more likely the villain calls down with a weaker Jack or a 9 or anything that hero beats when compared to the likeliness of being check-raised or villain calling down with a better hand.

That's what I'm saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

I 100% agree with that and that's why I voted bet. But your reply to someone about the validity of the value bet was -

"He doesn't have to win 50% of the time to make it profitable."

Which is true (you have to be good over 50%) if you're heads-up and mulling over the prospect of making a value bet (and will fold to a check-raise).

Incidentally if Hero was willing to call the check-raise, he would have to be good over 66% of the time here to make the value bet.

[Hack]

I included folding to the check-raise to make it over 50% imo.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]

I included folding to the check-raise to make it over 50% imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, you're missing the point. What was posted was a mathematical certainty.

When called, if your hand is not the best hand over 50% of the time, it is impossible for your bet to have any value.

Rob

[Hack]

I understand this. I understand that since it is two handed that it must be over 50% to make it a bet for value.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand this. I understand that since it is two handed that it must be over 50% to make it a bet for value.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Hack]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I understand this. I understand that since it is two handed that it must be over 50% to make it a bet for value.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[VBM]

[ QUOTE ]
What it comes down to is this: if I have a hand that figures to be better than the hands I put my opponents on, and I know they'll call with worse hands (despite how obviously scary the board is), I'll bet. I'm quicker to bet out of position, but in position, it's rare that I check.

[/ QUOTE ]

Out of position, I agree 100%. Maybe I need to pick better tables, but what I can't get over here is that Villain sees this board just as much as Hero does. And if he doesn't have it, isn't he afraid of the straight as well?

Strictly anecdotal as I've corrupted my hard drive and PT is lost for me right now, but this is typically what i'd expect from typical Villains by range of holdings;

1. weaker pair or pair w/ inferior kicker- check/fold.
2. 2 pair or a set- check/call or bet/call.
3. better than a set- check/raise or bet/raise.

thoughts? now sometimes, i think you may get villain to fold with a better holding (JT, JA, 9T) But I wouldn't bet this river unless I had observed a very weak Villain only showing down premium hands or I had cultivated such an image for myself...

OK, said my piece, assail away! /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[davelin]

Sorry to bump this old thread, but I just wanted to show that PPers will call a river bet with a very scary board with not much themselves.

PParty Poker 1/2 Hold'em (10 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is Button with 9/images/graemlins/club.gif, 9/images/graemlins/spade.gif.
UTG folds, UTG+1 folds, UTG+2 folds, MP1 folds, MP2 calls, MP3 calls, CO folds, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, SB folds, BB calls, MP2 calls, MP3 calls.

Flop: (8.50 SB) 6/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 5/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(4 players)</font>
BB checks, MP2 checks, MP3 checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, BB calls, MP2 calls, MP3 folds.

Turn: (5.75 BB) 7/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
BB checks, MP2 checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, BB calls, MP2 folds.

River: (7.75 BB) 8/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
BB checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, BB calls.

Final Pot: 9.75 BB

Results in white below: <font color="#FFFFFF">
BB has 7d 3d (two pair, sevens and fives).
Hero has 9c 9s (straight flush, nine high).
Outcome: Hero wins 9.75 BB. </font>

[DMBFan23]

[ QUOTE ]

Incidentally if Hero was willing to call the check-raise, he would have to be good over 66% of the time here to make the value bet.


[/ QUOTE ]

why? correct me if I'm thinking about this wrong: I'm putting in 2 to win 2, I just have more of a tell that I'm beat, so I still need to be good over 50% of the time, it's just that that's less likely.

[davelin]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Incidentally if Hero was willing to call the check-raise, he would have to be good over 66% of the time here to make the value bet.


[/ QUOTE ]

why? correct me if I'm thinking about this wrong: I'm putting in 2 to win 2, I just have more of a tell that I'm beat, so I still need to be good over 50% of the time, it's just that that's less likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming that if you're checked-raised your toast (which is probably true on this board). You win 1 when you're ahead and 2 if you're behind, thus you have to be good more than 66% of the time.