Calling with a straight draw intending to bluff any scare card

[FoxwoodsFiend]

5-5 NL at Foxwoods. Villain is a tricksy thinking LAG-doesn't get out of line but is willing to bluff on all streets and bully the table. Villain respects my play-he knows I'm a TAG capable of adjusting my play to keep him from running over the table. Villain has 2000 and I have him covered.
Villain is button, hero is SB w/3 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 5 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif
Folded to button: Raise to 20.
Hero calls. BB folds.
Flop: 4 /images/graemlins/heart.gif 6 /images/graemlins/club.gif J /images/graemlins/club.gif
Hero checks. Villain bets 50. Hero calls.
Turn: T /images/graemlins/diamond.gif
Hero checks. Villain bets 175. Hero calls.
River: 8 /images/graemlins/club.gif
Here's my question: I have been check-calling and am pretty confident villain has no read on me-I have check-called him with everything from middle pair to top-two depending on my read. So I have been treating the hand as though I have 15 outs-6 of them give me the chance to extract a lot of chips and the other 9 just help me win the pot. So when the club comes, if I'm planning on representing the flush, should I gun out the river big or check and try for the check-raise? Villain is unafraid to bet the river when he's been aggressive on the button, regardless of flop texture. Sorry for all the history, but I think that this type of opponent is the perfect person to represent a flush against with a busted straight draw.
Results in white:
<font color="white"> Hero checks. Villain bets 250. Hero raises to 650. Villain looks down at cards, says "Wow, I actually have top pair-I just looked at my cards..." Goes in tank and folds. Does anybody like this play or am I just getting too cute for my own good? </font>

[The_Bends]

Seems to me you played the situation perfectly. The great thing about this play is that if one scare card falls (the flush) you bluff and if the other falls (the straight) you bet with the best hand. Because you plan to play the same both ways its difficult for him to get a good read on you. Making this play seems to depend heavily on what read you think your villian has of you and you appear to have read his read correctly.

My only note of caution would be make sure you don't have a pattern of betting flush draws. I know I always tend to bet them strongly. If you always call with them and bet when they hit, then fine. If you bet when you have a genuine draw then he might be able to pick up this play as a bluff.

Nice play anyway.

[Loci]

There aren't many parts of this hand I actually like. If I find a guy that wants to steal my blinds in a no lim game, I'm inclined to fold to him when I have 3/5. There just aren't many hands that you can do anything with, short of sloppy floping trips or a straight. You're in with a inferior hand and out of position. Fold preflop.
On the flop, you do have the straight draw, and potentially might take away his hand if the turn is a club, but if he's got two face cards and ones a club, he'll probably call you down unless you push. To make your straight, you have to hit one of the six cards that don't make a flush.(25% roughly, assuming you stay to the river) I say this because if your original premise of bluffing at a flush is going to work, then betting your straight when the flush is out there is only going to keep you from getting paid off. Worse yet, if you hit the straight with one of those flush cards, if he DOESN'T run, he might have you drawing dead. If you bet the strait and he raises you all in, what do you do. You're out of position and have no clue what he's on. Because of your position, imo, if you are going to stick around post-flop, I'd rather see you check raise rather than flat call. (again, I'd just as soon see you fold) Check raise the flop and bet the turn REGARDLESS of a club hitting or not, and you might just take him off a hand. Then again you might be burning money.
Keep in mind that while you scared him off this one, he also didn't show his hand so he might have had nothing. The whole thing seems too dangerous considering you're in position 9/10 of the hands with this tricky player.
Glad it worked out for you.
Ez

[The_Bends]

I just think that the way this hand was described shows it as a great example of playing the player not the cards. Assuming the read is correct it looks to me like the villian is not particually keen to get involved with the hero and would rather beat the rest of the table. If thats true then the hero has exploited this perfectly simply by playing a textbook draw hand and therefore showing the villian what he expects. Namely that the hero is solid and sensible and is best avoided while there is money elsewhere.

[FoxwoodsFiend]

I do not normally semi-bluff pots-I don't think vilain would assume I don't have a flush because I've been check-calling.

[FoxwoodsFiend]

I agree the preflop call is questionable. I was just looking to get him to bluff since I knew he was auto-betting and I could check-raise him on the flop or turn and get him off whatever slop he was playing. I just so happened to get a decent flop for an otherwise useless hand, so I would rather have people take a look at post-flop. I don't need affirmation of the fact that 35 is crap. But either way I think I agree with your post-flop line. Just seeing if anybody prefers the way I played it, cause I'm not sure I do.

[Loci]

[ QUOTE ]
I just think that the way this hand was described shows it as a great example of playing the player not the cards. Assuming the read is correct it looks to me like the villian is not particually keen to get involved with the hero and would rather beat the rest of the table. If thats true then the hero has exploited this perfectly simply by playing a textbook draw hand and therefore showing the villian what he expects. Namely that the hero is solid and sensible and is best avoided while there is money elsewhere.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is a very distinct possibility.
My point revolves around the fact that calling preflop is OP's first mistake. Unless he decided then that he's just going to "outplay this one player this one hand" it's better just to move along. In no limit though, varying your play can be an asset for big hands, so I won't hold that against him. He flopped an open ended draw which is as good as can be hoped for with 5/3. I feel that he is misinterpreting the choice to call as a good one based on the outcome of the hand. It got the desired outcome, but there are details missing about the event that takes away my belief that this is more wreckless than clever.

[ QUOTE ]
it looks to me like the villian is not particually keen to get involved with the hero and would rather beat the rest of the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another possibility is that the villain couldn't beat a pair.

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel that he is misinterpreting the choice to call as a good one based on the outcome of the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please read my response to your last hand-I do not think 35 is a good call, I just thought I'd try stealing a pot and I got lucky to get a flop I could play around with. I don't think the call was good I just think it worked out well to set up this hand and am more interested in what people think of post-flop not because I think the mistake of calling is minimal but because I'm more interested in how many people will call with the intention of bluffing a scare card and how many think that even if they plan on doing this that I did it the right way.

[fsuplayer]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree the preflop call is questionable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think its at all questionable. against a guy who will fire three barrels with or w/o looking at his cards, I am playing anything playable but not dominated here. I mean, its 15 more to possible win several hundred if not more.

I would rather play 35s than A10 here.

[AZK]

Hmm, I think I agree with FSU, his call is less than 1% of either stack...at that point, I'm liable to play any two cards almost against a player who will gamble, assuming I wouldn't get stuck on a TPBK type hand for lots of money, which is safe to say that he wouldn't.

[Kaz The Original]

This is very well played. Preflop call is fine.

[radioheadfan]

I personally don't like the river check. Too many good players will check behind here given that the flush is out. He happened to suck so your plan worked out this time. I understand he's capable of firing every street but you simply cannot risk him checking the river (unless of course you noticed that he hadn't looked at his cards in which case a river check by you would be a brilliant play). I much prefer leading the river for a pot to 3/4 pot bet here to put him to a decision. This is for a couple of reasons:

a) He can't check behind
b) It's cheaper than check-raising
c) Who checks a made flush there against a button-stealer who could have anything? (Not many players)

This time your play worked out but I do believe a better play would have been to lead the river. You would have led at the river if you made your straight right? Play the flush bluff the same way....

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally don't like the river check. Too many good players will check behind here given that the flush is out. He happened to suck so your plan worked out this time. I understand he's capable of firing every street but you simply cannot risk him checking the river (unless of course you noticed that he hadn't looked at his cards in which case a river check by you would be a brilliant play). I much prefer leading the river for a pot to 3/4 pot bet here to put him to a decision. This is for a couple of reasons:

a) He can't check behind
b) It's cheaper than check-raising
c) Who checks a made flush there against a button-stealer who could have anything? (Not many players)

This time your play worked out but I do believe a better play would have been to lead the river. You would have led at the river if you made your straight right? Play the flush bluff the same way....

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree that a check was risking a check behind, but this player is ultragressive. But I'm worried that he would have to call a 3/4 pot bet suspecting I was check-calling down with a hand he beats and putting a blocking bet in (this player is actually not stupid-he's a smart guy and pretty tricky) and I thought that a check-raise on the river was more convincing than a river lead by a wide enough margin that it was worth the risk of him checking behind.
Also, I don't think I should execute the flush in the same way as I would have bet if I had hit my straight. My straight would have been difficult to put me on so I could bet out the pot and be sure he'd call so I would not play a rivered straight the same way I would play a rivered flush. I'm wondering what people suggest I bet if a 2 or a 7 came on the river (non-club) and what they think I should have done given that the river is a club. I know I'm playing the hand as though I have two draws but which one "hits" is significant for determining proper river betting.

[aggie]

I'm pretty sure this was a hand against me:

I had A-J...The entire hand i was thinking you either had a smaller J or a draw....When you checked to me on the river i became sold on a smaller Jack and decided to value bet...I thought you would lead out if you had made your hand and since it's head up, i can't be afraid of the nuts...Big mistake

Anyway, I'm pretty sure i would have value-called on the river with any club other than the 8...The terrible thing for my hand was that the 8 brought both the bigger straight and the flush. I think i sensed that you were "making a stand" against me on this hand.

That said, i would have paid off a 3/4 sized bet on the end thinking it was very likely you were making a blocking bet(like you said)...So you played the hand perfectly! My mistake was not taking your style into account on this hand. I think against many straight forward players a value bet was in order on the river here...But I definitely should have checked behind you since i knew you are capable of making this sort of play. I wont be making this mistake again. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Nice hand sir!

My question is: does he know you calculate pot odds or just does he think you calculate pot odds?
Because then, he will surely call you on the river knowing it must be a play here. Because if you play the odds you can't call with a flush draw on his turn bet. And if you calculate them implied with a possible river plus there, you MUST bet on the river. check call -&gt; play. It's a lot worse thinking of the straight in this scenatio, too.
Did you think about that? Surely he didn't. If he folds this one it can only be because he is afraid of lower two pair or trips. But why did you call flop and turn then? He can be sure you would raise this cards before the river because you must be afraid of the flush semi-bluff or the flush itself on the river.
Getting all together if he stops for a second and uses his logic he is going to call you there. And it was a bad play of you. If you KNEW he would not think about your action because he is a tricky one playing his feelings, it was a good play.

[aggie]

amatör, see above post...I am the villian in this case...I was all geared up to snap off a bluff on the river here, but both draws got there at once...I thought...Anyway, the check raise on the river definitely meant either extreme strength, or a bluff. He would not have made that move with a hand that he thought could win in a showdown (probably)...Since both draws got there (i actually forgot about the 5-3 straight draw, what else could he have been calling with?)...It ended up being a perfectly timed bluff with the perfect river card for it!

[fireitup123]

"Hero checks. Villain bets 250. Hero raises to 650. Villain looks down at cards, says "Wow, I actually have top pair-I just looked at my cards..." Goes in tank and folds. Does anybody like this play or am I just getting too cute for my own good?"

I don't like it. You missed your hand (bit hit one of your scare card outs), and the only way you can win the pot is with a bet. I would recommend a decent sized river bet by leading out. If the player really had just looked as his cards, then your bet may have worked if he didn't happen to have a big hand. If you actually had the straight or the flush, I doubt that you check the river. If he folded top 2 pair I think he made a bad fold (unless you normally check raise a flush like this on the river, and he knows that).

[aggie]

fireitup123, see my above posts....I am the villian and i had looked at my cards..I had TPTK....the reason i folded on the end is it was the worst card in the deck (it brought both the flush and the 7 high straight....)...Hero would probably only raise here as a bluff (missed draw) or with a very big hand....Since just about every draw got there (except hero's of course) i had to fold my hand because i could not think of a hand i could beat. Hero made a great play at the pot and won the hand the only way he could (I would have called him if he lead out for 3/4 of the pot)

In retrospect, i made a very bad bet on the river (i should have checked behind)

[fireitup123]

"In retrospect, i made a very bad bet on the river (i should have checked behind)"

Well, the FoxwoodFriend did say something to the effect that he thought you would bet no matter what the texture of the board on the river. I am a little surprised that you would bet with a possible flush out on the end, but then again, you would not expect your opponent to check a flush to you.

I agree with you that from your end a check would have been the best play. The reason I think that foxwood friend should have bet becuase he stated that he was treating the hand as a 17 outer or something to that effect. One of his outs did hit (scare outs). I just don't think it's a good play to go for a check raise normally in this situation, becuase the button is not likely to bet esp. with a flush card hitting (unless he has the flush).
However, he did mention a read on you, and that read was that you would bet the river. From what you are saying Foxwood Friend made a great play.