Checking the river to induce a bluff

[crunchy1]

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

Preflop: Hero is MP3 with J/images/graemlins/club.gif, J/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
UTG calls, <font color="#666666">4 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, Button calls, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, UTG calls.

Flop: (7.50 SB) 8/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 3/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, J/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
UTG checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, Button calls, UTG calls.

Turn: (5.25 BB) A/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
UTG checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, Button calls, UTG folds.

River: (7.25 BB) 3/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks....


First let me say that if UTG was still in the hand I'm leading the river every time and hoping that the 3 /images/graemlins/spade.gif hit one of the two. However, since UTG dropped on the turn and the straight/flush draws didn't come in on the river I thought this was a good place to go for the checkraise. My thinking here is that there was a higher probability of him betting after my check than there was of him calling my bet. I thought that heads-up the 3 /images/graemlins/spade.gif was a card that would likely induce a bluff-bet after my check. Comments/Thoughts.....

[btspider]

this is pointless FPS if the best read you have is "fish"..

[Shillx]

Button (FISH) calls

Explain exactly why this player will bet more hands on the river (when you check to him) then he will call a bet with. Fishy players love to call...not bet. Bet the river and get called 100% of the time.

Brad

[crunchy1]

Sorry guys - let me give you a better read on this player that I forgot to include in the OP. Poker Tracker has him as a fish after about 50 hands so the read isn't entirely solid. His stats post session (I don't know what they were at the point of this hand - but probably not far off) were 70VPIP/1.56PFR/1.28AF. The best read I had at the time however was a hand we were involved in together where he picked up a straight draw and raised my turn lead bet. He bet again on the river when he missed and I took it down with a pair.

EDIT: I took the fish alias out of the OP.

[jgorham]

I think it is very unusual for players to bluff into preflop raisers when an Ace is on the board. If you have QQ or KK you aren't folding, so I wouldn't make this play unless I knew the player was very laggy. Go ahead and bet and hope he raises it up for you.

[eh923]

1 hand showed that he liked to bet a missed draw. In 50 or so hands, it should have been clear that he likes to call way too much. I think the right play is obvious.

[SinCityGuy]

This is terrible.

[molawn2mo]

the "induce the bet" play works against a LAG but not against a LP. if your read is that he is post flop aggressive, then you are fine. if post flop passive then you have to bet. simple as that, maybe...

there is a thread running concurrent with this one that you were involved in, as i recall, having to do with "table image." This meta thinking was discarded in the other post (sfer's as i now recall) as virtually irrelevant for on-line play.

first, you comments in that thread were, imho, relevant and pertinent and don't know why you were lambasted, as such. second, this river that you post is in a real sense "generic" in that the thought process that one embarks upon in order to make a decision is one of the most common processes yet, we, in this forum, simplify the discussion, such that it is, to "passives love to call so if he is passive you must bet..." This works for most tables, i suppose, but there are times and they may be more common than some are willing to admit, where your opponents are actually adapting their play to their read of you. one tip off to your opponent's potential for this kind of play may be the number of tables he is playing; the greater the quantity of tables being played the greater the likelihood that he will always bet the river. or the longer the table has been playing together the greater the likelihood that there has, indeed, been sufficient information available to effect certain short term actions.

that said, bet if he is passive and check if he is aggro and i apologize if i have hijacked the thread.

[Augie]

I think this is a clear bet, online or live. If the player behind you was/is a LAG, or habitual bluffer, you would have been checking to him before the river, and planning the river checkraise all along.

The turn is more interesting, IMO. With your position, in the middle, I like betting, as you did. However, if you were 1st to act, I really like a check when the A falls on the turn.

As for the actual river play, at this limit, online, not betting for value with this hand is giving up too much.

(BTW crunchy1, I would admit you're limit game is probably better than mine right know, I'm sure you know why I say that - so take my, and other, comments with a /images/graemlins/grin.gif. My guess, is that you may be a bit bored with 2-4. Not saying you should move up or anything, but you may be trying to find ways to SQEEEEEZE profit from hands where there is no more profit to be had.)

Be Good,

Augie

[Clarkmeister]

Agree with the others. Bet your damn hand. Most players won't bother bluffing figuring you have KK and are scared of the ace. And the ones who will bet anyways don't go call-call-call on the previous 3 streets.

[yangster]

Help me here, being a newbie and all, but I was just reading TOP on this subject a few minutes ago and find it rather difficult to understand.

TOP, Key Factors,
1. The chances the opponent will bet if you check
2. The cances the opponent will call your raise

Now he hasn't played many hands with this opponent but I think there's a good chance he will get bet at, and as Sklansky says, "All but very tough players will call your raise, they'll grumble as they do it, but they will"

Here is what's confusing, according to TOP,
1. Determine the % of times opponent will call
2. Determine the % of times opp will bet and fold to raise
3. Detemine the % of times opponent will bet if you check and call your raise.

Ok, now double the last %, If the sum of the last 2 is greater than the first, then it is correct to check raise.

First, does anyone actually do this or even try to follow this theory? Does anyone actually have time during a hand on the fly to even give credence to it?

I know given the limited info on the opponent it would be tough to assign any % to any of this. And finally, am I correct in saying, yep this stuff is rather complicated?

Let's look at the previous situation.
1. I think he'd call 50% of time here.
2. I think he'd call the raise 80% as well
3. I think he'd bet 75% (being loose)

So double 3., to 150% which is greater than adding 1 and 2 (130%) so it's correct to check raise.

Then again, how do you assign the percentages??

[masonx]

[ QUOTE ]
Button (FISH) calls

Explain exactly why this player will bet more hands on the river (when you check to him) then he will call a bet with. Fishy players love to call...not bet. Bet the river and get called 100% of the time.


[/ QUOTE ]

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
Button (FISH) calls

[/ QUOTE ]
I changed the OP because I incorrectly originally categorized Villian as a fish. He was actually somewhere in between LP-P and LA-P (This is also over a limited # of hands so we can't really even be sure). It's a habit of calling any bad player a "fish" which doesn't lend itself well to this forum where we use fish to specifically refer to a loose player who's passive both pre- and post-flop.

Yangster - I like that thinking. It's not quite what I was thinking during the hand but close.

I wouldn't call this flop "draw heavy" but there definitely were opportunities out there (both straight and flush). My thought was that checking was more likely to squeeze out one more bet - so I'm greedy!! /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

In a previous hand I did observe this player to be capable of betting/raising (it was obvious to me during the game that he wasn't the "total fish" type that only calls and never raises). This was probably the main motivation at the time as to why I made the river check. I felt there were a number of hands he could've been calling with including: 9T, 2 diamonds (maybe with the Ad), maybe the lone Ad, maybe a 3. The only hand I see him calling a bet with is an A but I felt there was a chance that he'd bet a number of the other hands in order to pick up the pot. This is kind of in line with Yangster's thinking.

I'm still not sure if this thinking is right or wrong since Villian was still relatively unkown at the time of this hand and also because I was basing my play on the play of basically only one other hand (although that's all I had to go on).

BTW: Villian checked behind and I saw KTo in the hand history.

[SeaEagle]

You have the math right, yangster. If this guy would bet 75% of the time (and call the C/R 80%) then a C/R is clearly best.

However, I think your numbers work if he has something like AQ in his hand. And he probably doesn't since he would have likely raised the turn if he did.

The discussion here is "Assuming he has no hand, is a check good?" If he has no/a weak hand, then I would put the numbers at:
Call: &lt;50%
Bet: &lt;15%
Call a C/R: 15%
In which case, a bet is correct.

Really, who would bluff into a PF raiser who's bet all the way w/ both an A and J on board and a non-scare card coming on the river? The raiser probably has something, even if it's a pair of 8s, and even fish recognize a total bluff in this point is suicide. There are a lot of hands villian could have that he would call with but, for the life of me, I can't figure out what he would bet with.

[rmarotti]

[ QUOTE ]
Bet your damn hand.

[/ QUOTE ]