questionable

[joker122]

Party Poker 5/10 Hold'em (6 max, 5 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is BB with 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif, A/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
<font color="#CC3333">UTG raises</font>, <font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, Hero calls.

Flop: (4.40 SB) 8/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 7/images/graemlins/heart.gif, A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">UTG bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, UTG calls.

Turn: (4.20 BB) 3/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">UTG raises</font>, Hero calls.

River: (8.20 BB) K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">UTG bets</font>, Hero folds.

Final Pot: 9.20 BB

[NLSoldier]

I like it.

[BottlesOf]

What non-heart rivers were you check folding?

[Joe826]

i'm pretty sure all of them except a 9 or an A?

[Michael Davis]

I still like check-call check-call check-call the most here but the river K might make it a checkraise.

-Michael

[joker122]

yep.

[joker122]

i don't see what the K changes.

[Joe826]

[ QUOTE ]
I still like check-call check-call check-call the most here but the river K might make it a checkraise.

-Michael

[/ QUOTE ]

this is the line i usually take as well, but why does the K make it a check/raise?

[joker122]

i think check-call, check-call, bet is better than check-calling all 3 streets in these spots and is the line i usually take. with my flush draw my hand seemed too strong not to get in 2 bets on the flop, though.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]

i don't see what the K changes.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is more likely to call with a worse hand(a pair of kings).

[Joe826]

The fact that he might have just hit second pair justfies a check/raise? A lead-out maybe..

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
i think check-call, check-call, bet is better than check-calling all 3 streets in these spots and is the line i usually take. with my flush draw my hand seemed too strong not to get in 2 bets on the flop, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still, if Villain has a worse hand, he probably doesn't have a whole lot of outs (and your flush draw is part of the reason for this). Why try to push him off of it?

[Jeff W]

I don't claim that check-raising is the optimal line here(it might be, I'll think about it more--I usually bet). I was explaining Michael's reasoning.

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
i think check-call, check-call, bet is better than check-calling all 3 streets in these spots and is the line i usually take. with my flush draw my hand seemed too strong not to get in 2 bets on the flop, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

The reason this sucks is you put in two bets on the turn.

Krishan

[Evan]

You're check folding the river UI but calling if you river an ace? What hands did we get ahead of w/ a rivered ace? Really only 87 as far as I can tell.

EDIT: 87 is also not very likely, I think we would all agree.

[joker122]

[ QUOTE ]
You're check folding the river UI but calling if you river an ace? What hands did we get ahead of w/ a rivered ace? Really only 87 as far as I can tell.

EDIT: 87 is also not very likely, I think we would all agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

i see your logic in that if i'm outkicked to begin with i'll still be outkicked even if i river an ace. however, another ace on the river would make is so much more likely that he doesn't have one. i mean, you don't really expect me to fold trips on the river, do you?

[joker122]

that's a great point (credit to MD and Jeff for pointing it out) that i never considered. i think that might push the river into a check-call. i think a check-raise is a little out of line though.

[Danenania]

[ QUOTE ]
however, another ace on the river would make is so much more likely that he doesn't have one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Backwards reasoning. You're basing the probability that he has an A on his turn action. Another on the river doesn't change anything.

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
however, another ace on the river would make is so much more likely that he doesn't have one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Backwards reasoning. You're basing the probability that he has an A on his turn action. Another on the river doesn't change anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. If you think he has an ace 95% of the time and is bluffing 5% of the time, I think a reevaluation of your estimates is required when the 2nd ace falls on the river.

Krishan

[rory]

Fold preflop.

[Joe826]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't claim that check-raising is the optimal line here(it might be, I'll think about it more--I usually bet). I was explaining Michael's reasoning.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a good point insofar as betting out on the river is probably the best line, but actually if he hit with something like KQ he's more likely NOT to bet, I think.

He no longer needs to bluff to win the pot, so a check-behind is more likely. Anyways, interesting points.

[Lmn55d]

I also disagree. I don't think there's anything backwards about it. Hero puts villain on a range of hands based on his turn action. This range has a high quantity of aces, but also hands like KK, etc. The second ace coming forces you to change the number of combos for each hand in this range and should affect your play.

[Danenania]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
however, another ace on the river would make is so much more likely that he doesn't have one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Backwards reasoning. You're basing the probability that he has an A on his turn action. Another on the river doesn't change anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. If you think he has an ace 95% of the time and is bluffing 5% of the time, I think a reevaluation of your estimates is required when the 2nd ace falls on the river.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? If you decide he is 95% to have an A on the turn, you should accept that another A will come on the river 1 in 40 times as part of your decision. Why change your mind just because the longshot came through?

[SomethingClever]

Any read on UTG?

I think I play this the same, except I call the river against most opponents.

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
however, another ace on the river would make is so much more likely that he doesn't have one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Backwards reasoning. You're basing the probability that he has an A on his turn action. Another on the river doesn't change anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. If you think he has an ace 95% of the time and is bluffing 5% of the time, I think a reevaluation of your estimates is required when the 2nd ace falls on the river.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? If you decide he is 95% to have an A on the turn, you should accept that another A will come on the river 1 in 40 times as part of your decision. Why change your mind just because the longshot came through?

[/ QUOTE ]

Part of the 95% was based on their being 2 aces left in the deck.

Krishan

[Joe826]

[ QUOTE ]

Why? If you decide he is 95% to have an A on the turn, you should accept that another A will come on the river 1 in 40 times as part of your decision. Why change your mind just because the longshot came through?

[/ QUOTE ]

If, when making your calculations on the turn, Jerbas from PartyPoker is nice enough to tell you that another Ace will hit on the river, do you disclude this information in your analysis?

[joker122]

to reiterate what others have said: more aces on board = less chance villian holds one.

[joker122]

nope, no read.

[Danenania]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Why? If you decide he is 95% to have an A on the turn, you should accept that another A will come on the river 1 in 40 times as part of your decision. Why change your mind just because the longshot came through?

[/ QUOTE ]

If, when making your calculations on the turn, Jerbas from PartyPoker is nice enough to tell you that another Ace will hit on the river, do you disclude this information in your analysis?

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose I would mostly disclude it, yes. Unless he could also tell us whether the Ace that will hit is the last one left in the deck or 1 of 2, the information is mostly irrelevant. I say "mostly" because it would serve to eliminate AA from the villain's possible holdings, which helps a little.

[Danenania]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
however, another ace on the river would make is so much more likely that he doesn't have one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Backwards reasoning. You're basing the probability that he has an A on his turn action. Another on the river doesn't change anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. If you think he has an ace 95% of the time and is bluffing 5% of the time, I think a reevaluation of your estimates is required when the 2nd ace falls on the river.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? If you decide he is 95% to have an A on the turn, you should accept that another A will come on the river 1 in 40 times as part of your decision. Why change your mind just because the longshot came through?

[/ QUOTE ]

Part of the 95% was based on their being 2 aces left in the deck.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't follow. The Ace hitting on the river is consistent with it having been in the deck when you made your decision on the turn.

Even if you end up with trips at the end, you still need to explain through handreading logic what the villain could have checkraised you with on the turn. And given that the river was unknown at the time of the turn, it cannot be used in a bayesian analysis of that action.

[wheelz]

[ QUOTE ]
with my flush draw my hand seemed too strong not to get in 2 bets on the flop, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

But if you're behind, then you're behind, and you make it more expensive to draw to a heart or 9. Villain is not folding a better hand. If you're ahead, you don't want to make villain fold. I don't think the flop check-raise is a good idea, do it when your 9 or heart comes. If it doesn't, then check/call check/call bet is probably best.

[krishanleong]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
however, another ace on the river would make is so much more likely that he doesn't have one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Backwards reasoning. You're basing the probability that he has an A on his turn action. Another on the river doesn't change anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. If you think he has an ace 95% of the time and is bluffing 5% of the time, I think a reevaluation of your estimates is required when the 2nd ace falls on the river.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? If you decide he is 95% to have an A on the turn, you should accept that another A will come on the river 1 in 40 times as part of your decision. Why change your mind just because the longshot came through?

[/ QUOTE ]

Part of the 95% was based on their being 2 aces left in the deck.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't follow. The Ace hitting on the river is consistent with it having been in the deck when you made your decision on the turn.

Even if you end up with trips at the end, you still need to explain through handreading logic what the villain could have checkraised you with on the turn. And given that the river was unknown at the time of the turn, it cannot be used in a bayesian analysis of that action.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is another scenerio. Your playing live in the same situation. And then before the river card comes, the person on your left whispers to you that he had an ace. You now increase the % time your opponent might be bluffing slightly. I don't think this is a huge modification of our earlier estimes. Maybe from something like 95%/5% to 92%/8% (made hand/bluff). But sometimes this will swing a fold to a call.

You see this logic taken to extremes when AA goes nuts on the river when the board goes trips... just to find out your opponent who played the whole hand like trips has rivered quads.

Krishan

[joker122]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're ahead, you don't want to make villain fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think alot of players will call down with something like KK-TT even if i CR the flop. so, i get one more bet in than if i were to do the check-call x2 + bet.

[Michael Davis]

"He is more likely to call with a worse hand(a pair of kings)."

Right, though he is also less likely to bet something like TT that he will bet if a total blank hits, so there's a tradeoff.

Those who say he is going to check behind with KQ, well, why? What exactly have you done in this hand that would make KQ check this river after pairing? Would you check? (This is a general response, not to Jeff.)

-Michael