I deem this new thread worthy...

[CallMeIshmael]

In this thread:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1979641&page=0&view=c ollapsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1

I made an argument that occasionally you will not be 3-bet by a strong hand on the river that would have 3-bet you on the turn, because, overall, players tend to play more passively on the river.

Note: I'm putting this in a new thread because it has nothing to do with that hand in general.

I opened up PT, and filtered out all players with whom I have played fewer than 500 hands. This left a healthy mix of TAGs, Fish, Calling Stations and all other icons (bisonbison rules).

I collected the following data:

Aggression factor averages:

Flop: 2.88
Turn: 2.80
River: 1.66

The river is the least aggressive street for 24 of the 38 participants. This seems like it is significantly different from the 12.67 that would be expected by chance, but I cant remember how to do that test. (I think it is Chi-square, but Im not sure. Perhaps someone else would know. Gaming Mouse seems very good with the numbers).

Overall, at party 2/4 and 3/6 what are everyone's thoughts on this?

Three parts of the reason for the decreased aggression surely are:

1. No semi-bluffing
2. No need for hand protection
3. Going for overcalls (not as often done on other streets)

But, before I started reading twoplustwo, I definitely played a weak-tight game that feared monsters on the river, and there were situations where I would bet/raise the turn but just be happy to showdown on the river.

Does anyone else out there notice this, or am I crazy?

[UseThePeenEnd]

I've seen this fairly often since I started using PlayerView and my anecdotal experience is that it is more noticeable in tighter players than loose.

Its also true of me as well (I am more aggressive on the turn than either the flop or river) for reasons related to those you noted:
> checking out of position to elicit bluffs, especially from the skittish but optimistic.
>going for overcalls
>checking on the end to see the showdown cheaply when the river helps enough of the range of hands I think Im facing that a bet is not EV given the pot odds.

I guess I'm looking for a balance point between two rules:

Bet your marginal hands for value against loose opponents
And
Thou shalt not thin-bet the river unless it is a brick.

Some call that weak-tight, but Im variance-averse /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[ErrantNight]

if it's of value it's still of value. that some bets are MORE valuable than others shouldn't dissuade you from placing smaller edges. pushing small edges at these limits is incredibly important. aversion to such situations may not prevent you from being a winning player, but will definitely prevent you from being a player that kills these limits.

as for the original thread... i think the possibility of another card to come v. all the cards being out on the table makes 3-betting less likely to occur more than anything else.

[hate]

Ishmael, you've got a place in my /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[GuyOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
Three parts of the reason for the decreased aggression surely are:

1. No semi-bluffing
2. No need for hand protection
3. Going for overcalls (not as often done on other streets)

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't read through the linked thread, so my apologies if this has already been mentioned. Another reason is that the average hand in terms of hand strength will need to be stronger to be current best as the hand progresses. For example, when are you more likely to show continued aggression with KK: on a T92 board, a T928 board, or a T9289 board?

GoT