AJ hits 2nd pair, should I have bet the river?

[wax311]

Very loose-passive table.

UTG: 60/0 in 30 hands, passive and stupid
UTG+1: 44.83/0 in 29 hands, passive calling station
No reads on MP2 poster
CO: 66.67/0 in 22 hands no postflop reads
SB: 43.33/10 in 30 hands somewhat aggressive
BB: 36/4 in 25 hands bluffed a couple times

Party Poker 0.5/1 Hold'em (9 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is MP1 with A/images/graemlins/spade.gif, J/images/graemlins/heart.gif. MP2 posts a blind of $0.5.
UTG calls, UTG+1 calls, Hero calls, MP2 (poster) checks, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, CO calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, SB completes, BB checks.

Flop: (7 SB) 7/images/graemlins/heart.gif, K/images/graemlins/heart.gif, J/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(7 players)</font>
SB checks, BB checks, UTG checks, UTG+1 checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, MP2 calls, CO calls, SB folds, BB calls, UTG calls, UTG+1 calls.

Turn: (6.50 BB) 3/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(6 players)</font>
BB checks, UTG checks, UTG+1 checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, MP2 calls, CO folds, BB folds, UTG calls, UTG+1 folds.

River: (9.50 BB) 6/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
UTG checks, Hero checks, MP2 checks.

Final Pot: 9.50 BB

River check right here or should I have bet for value?

[jaxUp]

hmmm...this is a tough call. Against 2 opponents a check is maybe not as bad as against 1. HU...easy bet. 2 opponents, I'm not really sure either. Tough spot. I'm curious to ree other responses.

[FishHooks]

Yea same here, the 3 flush with one overcard to your pair looks kinda scary one opponent its an easy bet, 2 opponents i dunno....

[crownjules]

I say check. I'm not fearful of the flush, but I am of someone having a K if they've called your aggression on the previous two streets. I don't think you're ahead here enough to make it a "value" bet.

[GrunchCan]

Raise PF.
Bet the river.

[FishHooks]

Yea definatly raise preflop, if you thined out the feild from the PF raise the K isn't looking so scary now, so i then value bet the river.

[scotty34]

I actually would bet this river I think. I am not worried about UTG having a K, as no one raised PF, so he would have likely opened when a K hit the flop. I doubt MP2 has a K either as there is a possible flush draw. You did not show strength preflop, so unless his kicker is extremely weak, I see no reason that he should believe his K is outkicked (how loose is he, what kinds of K's would he be calling with PF?). He would probably raise to try and thin out the field to protect his vulnerable K. The only thing that has me worried is UTG making a flush on the river. However, this does not happen often enough that you shouldn't bet for value.

[Catt]

You gotta raise this pre-flop, dude. You have a strong hand, a chance to isolate the two donks that limped, a heap of dead money in the poster and blinds, and a chance to buy the button. Letting the poster and the blinds see this for free (or for the SB complete) is asking for trouble and not extracting $$ when you likely have the best of it.

I would bet the river, but I don't think the check is horrible. The problem with betting the river is that MP2 is unknown, and I would not be sure how to respond to a raise from him. UTG sounds like he will call a bet with a worse J, a 7, maybe even a 3. I'd hate to fold to MP2's raise and would probably have to call getting 14:1 but would be pretty sure I'm beat.

For those who advocate betting the river - what do you do if MP2 raises and UTG folds? If MP2 raises and UTG calls?

[scotty34]

Fold to any river raise. What would they raise with that you are beating. The only answer would be an outright bluff. However, since you haven't run into any real resistance yet, I don't see why you should stop betting. The check definetly isn't terrible though.

[aK13]

[ QUOTE ]
Raise PF.
Bet the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

[tomcain]

I think you missed a raise PF. I have largely come to the conclusion that betting on the river is OK here. I used to check a lot more. It really depends on any reads and how many people are left. In this case, however, I would check the river. The K on the board is still a problem and the 3-flush.

Tom

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
Fold to any river raise. What would they raise with that you are beating. The only answer would be an outright bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am inclined to agree, but it's a tough fold against an unknown when we'd be getting 12.5 to 1 to call one back (and better if UTG calls the raise). If I saw a raise from MP2, the only real hands I could give any credence to are flushes and funky two pairs. Is MP2 willing to bluff ~8% of the time in this situation?

Is this a situation where you can only bet if you're willing to fold to a raise? If not, is betting and calling a raise spewing chips?

[ QUOTE ]
However, since you haven't run into any real resistance yet, I don't see why you should stop betting.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not a good reason to bet. We should only be betting if (1) we know how to react to a raise; and (2) we expect worse hands to call. If we don't think a worse hand will call, there is no reason to risk a raise by betting. In this particular instance, based on the read of UTG, I think it's reasonably likely that he'd call, and that when he does we're ahead more than 55% of the time. MP2 is the wildcard.

[scotty34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fold to any river raise. What would they raise with that you are beating. The only answer would be an outright bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am inclined to agree, but it's a tough fold against an unknown when we'd be getting 12.5 to 1 to call one back (and better if UTG calls the raise). If I saw a raise from MP2, the only real hands I could give any credence to are flushes and funky two pairs. Is MP2 willing to bluff ~8% of the time in this situation?

Is this a situation where you can only bet if you're willing to fold to a raise? If not, is betting and calling a raise spewing chips?

[ QUOTE ]
However, since you haven't run into any real resistance yet, I don't see why you should stop betting.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not a good reason to bet. We should only be betting if (1) we know how to react to a raise; and (2) we expect worse hands to call. If we don't think a worse hand will call, there is no reason to risk a raise by betting. In this particular instance, based on the read of UTG, I think it's reasonably likely that he'd call, and that when he does we're ahead more than 55% of the time. MP2 is the wildcard.

[/ QUOTE ]

In terms of the likelihood of MP2 bluffing, that is really going to depend on your reads of him. In this scenario I bet, and yes I do intend to fold to a raise.

I am fairly confident we are ahead in this hand enough to make a bet worthwhile. I don't put either UTG or MP2 on a King. My reasoning for this is that UTG would have opened the flop in all likelihood, especially with 2 flush cards. MP2 would have raised a K on the flop, again with the reasoning of their being 2 flush cards. I don't think MP2 would be kicker scared, as hero showed no aggression PF. MP2 would raise this flop both for information, and to try and to get value from the draws that decide to tag along. Also, it would eliminate the lower pairs that might stick around and hit 2-pair or trips.

The only real hand I am worried about is UTG making his flush on the river, and attempting a C/R. This is why I am willing to fold to a raise on the river.

Without any reads provided, the hands I put the others on are: MP2 has a J with a weaker kicker. He was calling down in hopes that Hero was bluffing, or hitting 2-pair (low limit players love to do this). UTG is a bit more difficult, perhaps a lower PP that he couldn't get rid of, possibly also a J, or maybe even something like A7. If UTG C/R the river, then I would say almost certainly a flush.

This could be totally off, as it was done without any reads, but this is what I can gather from the given information.


Edit: My bad, I totally overlooked the reads section at the top of the OP. I stand by my statements though even with this new info about UTG. Unless he is so passive that he will not bet top pair.

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
In terms of the likelihood of MP2 bluffing, that is really going to depend on your reads of him. In this scenario I bet, and yes I do intend to fold to a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I rely pretty heavily on reads, more so than most, I think (I watch post-flop play pretty closely, especially when new to a table and I take notes on post-flop play). This river decision is somewhat more interesting because we truly do have an unknown -- he just posted this orbit.

[ QUOTE ]
The only real hand I am worried about is UTG making his flush on the river, and attempting a C/R. This is why I am willing to fold to a raise on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am way more concerned about the unknown in MP2. UTG is a total donkey according to the read. I'd expect to see a garbage hand more than a flush here. No reads on post-flop aggression or on post-flop play on him but I am assuming very passive post-flop too -- if I got C/R'd by UTG I'd have an easier time folding. But MP2 might be a sharper tack.

[ QUOTE ]
Without any reads provided, the hands I put the others on are: MP2 has a J with a weaker kicker. He was calling down in hopes that Hero was bluffing, or hitting 2-pair (low limit players love to do this). UTG is a bit more difficult, perhaps a lower PP that he couldn't get rid of, possibly also a J, or maybe even something like A7. If UTG C/R the river, then I would say almost certainly a flush.

This could be totally off, as it was done without any reads, but this is what I can gather from the given information.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like your efforts, but these players are very difficult to read with that degree of accuracy. UTG could have A-high; he could have a K; he could have a J; he could have a 7; he could have something like Q9 -- he could have almost anything because, in the words of the read, he is passive and stupid (and a 60/0 statistical read).

We don't know whether MP2 is passive and stupid or sharp.

I may be a bit biased in this analysis by my own recent play experiences -- I have been experimenting with river bluff-raises (or quasi-bluff raises where I might have the best or second best hand) against TAGs or others capable of making tough folds when the right river card falls, and though my sample size is small, I am not yet disappointed in the results. This would be an interesting hand for such a quasi-bluff raise, if for instance, I had a J and a good read on Hero.

[scotty34]

[ QUOTE ]
I like your efforts, but these players are very difficult to read with that degree of accuracy. UTG could have A-high; he could have a K; he could have a J; he could have a 7; he could have something like Q9 -- he could have almost anything because, in the words of the read, he is passive and stupid (and a 60/0 statistical read).

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true, but given this range of hands, its still a value bet.

Yes, without any reads whatsoever, the MP2 is much more of a wildcard. I would consider this a 'different breed' of a value bet. Given that your typical party micro player is not that sharp, usually loose and passive, and often calls down with quite marginal holdings, I say we are ahead of most of their hands. Sure, this player could be a shark, but there is no reason to suspect so, you can just assume average. If you bet this river versus any random party micro player, I think you are getting value from it.

If he calls and shows a K, then you can start making your reads on him from there.

[Catt]

I agree with your analysis.

The two questions I find interesting are:

1. Can we bet this river without the ability to fold to a raise from MP2?

2. If the answer is "no," does that dictate that we must check the river?

FWIW, I think the answers are NO and YES

EDIT: And I think we should bet the river. I just can't say that I fold to a raise 100% of the time. My river play leaves a lot to be desired.

[scotty34]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with your analysis.

The two questions I find interesting are:

1. Can we bet this river without the ability to fold to a raise from MP2?

2. If the answer is "no," does that dictate that we must check the river?

FWIW, I think the answers are NO and YES

EDIT: And I think we should bet the river. I just can't say that I fold to a raise 100% of the time. My river play leaves a lot to be desired.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, well my question is this: What possible range of hands is an unknown player (also keeping in mind you are unknown to him) going to raise this river with?

[Catt]

We may not be unknown to him. He may have a statistical read on us through datamining or otherwise - but that is a bit beside the point.

I'd say he'd raise: (1) a hand that beats us; or (2) a bluff (including a quasi-bluff where he has a possible second best hand like a xJ). I wouldn't rule out a Kx hand held by a FPS-sufferer (thinking he was going for overcalls the whole way).

[scotty34]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say he'd raise: (1) a hand that beats us; or (2) a bluff (including a quasi-bluff where he has a possible second best hand like a xJ). I wouldn't rule out a Kx hand held by a FPS-sufferer (thinking he was going for overcalls the whole way).

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Obviously a good reason to fold

2) I rarely, if ever have seen a player call down aggression to the river with mid-pair, and all of a sudden decide to try and bluff against 2 opponents, hoping they both fold. I rule out that he has xJ because of this. If he was suffering from FPS and held Kx, and comes alive on the river, then we are beat.

I think the only hand that raises in this scenario beats us, and therefore we can bet and safely fold to a raise. At least this will be the case more than the 90% of the time that we need to make calling here profitable, IMO.

[Catt]

So, to make the bet/fold line correct, we need to be sure that (1) if called by both, we are good more than 34% of the time and if called by one we are good more than 50% of the time; and (2) unknown Villain will not bluff or quasi-bluff more than ~8% of the time. Correct?

[scotty34]

[ QUOTE ]
So, to make the bet/fold line correct, we need to be sure that (1) if called by both, we are good more than 34% of the time and if called by one we are good more than 50% of the time; and (2) unknown Villain will not bluff or quasi-bluff more than ~8% of the time. Correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks right to me. Looking at it from the mathematical point of view makes it a lot more difficult. I am not so sure about the line now. I think I would really want good reads now to make this play correctly.

Having said that though, I think I still take this line. You can't really check and hope that it gets checked through. If it does check through, and you win, you feel you missed value. If you check, and MP2 bets, I really don't think you can fold after investing that many bets into the pot. Betting and folding to a raise, and check-calling both cost you 1BB. However getting it checked through and winning you lose on some missed bets. I personally really don't think you are going to be raised by a lesser hand more than 1 or 2 percent of the time, so that is not a big consideration for me. Others may disagree with that though.

[Catt]

Yeah - I don't disagree that this is the best line. In addition to the math above, betting also has the advantage of (rarely) folding out a better hand (like a really weak K) or an unlikely chopping hand.

If we check and MP2 bets, then barring a raise from UTG, I think we absolutely have to call -- there's a good chance we've induced a bluff bet from MP2 with a weaker hand (a much greater chance than seeing a bluff-raise). Against a total unknown I have no idea how to guestimate the likelihood of inducing a bluff or quasi-bluff in this hand.

The tougher part about the bet/fold line is having the fortitude to fold to a raise. I don't always have sufficient fortitude (which makes betting a bad move).