General question about value betting the river

[PantherZ]

There are countless posts on these forums and hand examples in books like SSH on value betting the river, even when a scare card comes. I'll frequently see a post where a player is chided for checking on a scary board. "You had a clear value bet on the river."

That's fine.

But these hand examples in books and responses to posted hands virtually never say what to do when you get raised. Am I to assume that generally you should be calling these raises?

Thanks.

[HopeydaFish]

[ QUOTE ]
There are countless posts on these forums and hand examples in books like SSH on value betting the river, even when a scare card comes. I'll frequently see a post where a player is chided for checking on a scary board. "You had a clear value bet on the river."

That's fine.

But these hand examples in books and responses to posted hands virtually never say what to do when you get raised. Am I to assume that generally you should be calling these raises?

Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Whether or not you should call depends on your opponent, the board, the betting pattern that lead up to the river, the size of the pot, and the strength of your hand.

Generally speaking, if someone raises you on the river, they have you beat. However, that's where knowledge of your opponent comes into play. If he's a maniac, you should call because he might be holding just about anything.

If he's a good player, he probably has you beat. At this point you should do some quick math in your head. Given the raise, if you think your hand will win 1 out of 20 times, you should only call if there is at least 20X your bet in the pot. If you think it'll win 1 of 5 times, you should bet if there is at least 5x your bet in the pot...etc... Of course, using that logic, it follows that the bigger the pot, the more likely it is that you should call.

Also, you didn't specify whether you're HU on the river or facing more than one opponent. Against more than one opponent with a marginal hand, you need absolutely fantastic pot odds to call a raise because the odds of you winning the hand will be progressively worse, plus if you're not the last to act after the raise you have to worry about another re-raise coming after your call.

Another factor is whether or not you were check-raised. If you're the last to act and you bet on every street, and your opponent called you all the way, and then check-raised you when you bet on the river -- you can almost guarantee that he made his hand on the river. The reason being that *your* betting pattern put you on a made hand *or* a draw -- but your opponent knows you weren't on a draw because *he* made his draw (usually a nut flush) on the river. A call at this point is usually just throwing money away.

[Justin A]

My default is to fold to check-raises. Check-raises are very very very rarely a bluff. I will usually call if my hand is strong enough to beat some of my opponents hands that he might value check-raise. Otherwise you gotta dump your typical one pair hands.

If you lead and are raised by someone in position, you can usually call down more. It takes a less strong hand to raise in position. Also, raises in position are more likely to be a bluff when a scare card hits. However, game texture is important. No one ever folds to river raises in most games, so a bluff is a pretty bad play. This makes it more likely that when you get raised on the river that you're behind.

[axioma]

agreed. most people very rarely semibluff/bluff checkraise (perhaps incorrectly).

as for the original comment, missing value bets on the end can be very costly in the long run. i went through a faze of constantly checking mediocre hands on the river hoping to induce a bluff and to prevent getting raised by a better hand, but quickly realised that more often than not you have to bet these hands and except you just have to do some thinking if you get raised. its very frustrating to check and have your opponent check behind, only to show middle pair that you know he would have called a bet with.