bad river call?

[daryn]

PokerStars 30/60 Hold'em (7 handed) pokerhand.org hand converter (http://www.pokerhand.org)

Preflop: Hero is BB with 3/images/graemlins/club.gif, 3/images/graemlins/spade.gif.
<font color="#666666">4 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Button raises</font>, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, Hero calls.

Flop: (4.50 SB) 2/images/graemlins/club.gif, 6/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, 6/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">Button bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, Button calls.

Turn: (4.25 BB) K/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, Button calls.

River: (6.25 BB) 5/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">Button bets</font>, Hero calls.

Final Pot: 8.25 BB

[rory]

Fold preflop. I check-call the river too.

[daryn]

wow i'm surprised by the preflop fold recommendation

[steveyz]

I fold too. But if I do play it I 3-bet.

[tpir90036]

I am bad at making river folds like this one. If your opponent is sane it is hard to imagine you are ahead... but I have seen enough A-high bets in this spot that I pay this off.

I see a flop here every time. Sometimes I 3-bet... sometimes I don't. Maybe that is a leak of mine as well as paying off this river.

[daryn]

interesting, is there anything you will just call with?

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
Fold preflop. I check-call the river too.

[/ QUOTE ]

No way I fold.

[Paluka]

This board just baffle me now. Peter_rus defends bb with 34o, other people fold 33.

[AviD]

[ QUOTE ]
This board just baffle me now. Peter_rus defends bb with 34o, other people fold 33.

[/ QUOTE ]
/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[PinkyRingo]

I wouldn't fold this to a button raise. But I would like to hear more from those who would, simply to better understand the reasoning.

With little knowledge of the opponent, this looks like a good time to just check-call the whole way. Your hand has showdown value, but there's no need to invest more than necessary since your opponent isn't going to fold a hand that beats you. Am I way off here?

[phish]

I can't imagine folding pre-flop. Even if you're playing just to flop a 3, you're already getting 3.5 to 1 return. Add in implied odds, and you should have enough to call. Plus the fact that he may decide to play it weak after the flop and just check it down if he doesn't hit, and a call seems mandatory.

[daryn]

i thought calling preflop and checkraising most boards would be standard play here, maybe i'm wrong? nobody has really said anything about it.

[Paluka]

I think 33 would probably be a small winner in this spot if you did nothing but call down blindly except folding when an ace comes on the flop or turn.

[daryn]

more of a winner than my line you think? i hate to check/call check/call check/call against all but the dumbest opposition.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
more of a winner than my line you think? i hate to check/call check/call check/call against all but the dumbest opposition.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I like your line better.

[Victor]

i play it the same way as you against an unkown or seemingly aggressive player.

often, tho, i will have a read on how a player plays the river. for instance, some players never bluff the riv. at 30-60 i am not sure how many players dont bluff.

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
i thought calling preflop and checkraising most boards would be standard play here, maybe i'm wrong? nobody has really said anything about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be standard for me, although I'll mix in check/call/flop-bet/turn and check/call, check/raise, depending on whether how drawy the board is and how out of line I've been getting.

[pokerjo22]

You have to call it. Opponent came from a steal position and HU there are way too many hands you can beat that your opponent might have played this way.

[phish]

[ QUOTE ]
i thought calling preflop and checkraising most boards would be standard play here, maybe i'm wrong? nobody has really said anything about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right, that's how it should be played. But even if you don't want to take any risks and are just trying to flop a set, you're still getting proper odds to call. I can't imagine folding any pocket pair for one more bet in the BB.

[bugstud]

as button I would possibly be betting AQ for value here, or flatout bluffing, so I think I like your line all the way. If you lost to 44, well, oops /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Bartholow]

Why not just bet the river?

On the flop and turn it's easy for him to think you are just [censored] around, but you could actually be fastplaying a 6. So he's going to call down a wide range of hands, some of which have you beat, many of which don't. On the river your check lets the ace-high hands off scott free, and now he can value bet a lot of things and you have to pay off. Meanwhile he still won't raise with a worse hand IME.

[tpir90036]

This is a totally player-dependent play, yes/no?

Some people would call with Ace high but not bet it. Others might bet Queen high in this same spot if we check. I always lean towards inducing a bluff without a good read... but that's just me... or what the Party 15 has made me. I probably end up missing some thin value bets in spots like this. *shrug*

[Your Mom]

I think a preflop fold getting 3.5 to 1 is downright awful. Most likely you are ahead here. I call and c/r nearly every flop.

[Bartholow]

It is to a good extent player dependent yes, but a hand like A high SHOULD often check in this spot because it has some showdown value, but little chance to make a better hand fold IMHO. Whereas a Q high SHOULD often bet because it has very little showdown value. In theory.

I guess what I'm saying is that in this particular hand IF you are ahead of your opponent they are more likely to have the sort of hand that might call a bet but also feel ok checking, and less likely to have a hand that HAS to bluff to have a shot. But if you have a read on your opponent follow that obviously.

[esspo]

How in the world can this be right? 33 is either a huge dog or even money against any two cards. If you add everything up you get -ev. Plus you are out of position. Yuk.

[haakee]

I would play this the same way you did if I didn't know anything about the button.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
How in the world can this be right? 33 is either a huge dog or even money against any two cards. If you add everything up you get -ev. Plus you are out of position. Yuk.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to see you "add up everything".

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
How in the world can this be right? 33 is either a huge dog or even money against any two cards. If you add everything up you get -ev. Plus you are out of position. Yuk.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to see you "add up everything".

[/ QUOTE ]

i like paluka

[esspo]

If button is reasonable, then yes, bad call. The flush draw got there. Very bad. There is no way you make money on the river by check-calling a reasonable player. A reasonable player just won't bluff enough in that spot to justify your call.

If you want to see a showdown you must bet.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
If button is reasonable, then yes, bad call. The flush draw got there. Very bad. There is no way you make money on the river by check-calling a reasonable player. A reasonable player just won't bluff enough in that spot to justify your call.

If you want to see a showdown you must bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

A reasonable player will bluff just enough so that it doesn't matter whether or not you call!

[cnfuzzd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How in the world can this be right? 33 is either a huge dog or even money against any two cards. If you add everything up you get -ev. Plus you are out of position. Yuk.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would like to see you "add up everything".

[/ QUOTE ]

i like paluka

[/ QUOTE ]

[esspo]

You have three sets of possible hands button could have. Against 1 set you break even (acutally make a tinsy winsy bit). Against the second set you lose big. Aginst the third set (the hands that contain a 2) you make some money.

For you algebra nuts:

Set 1 ~ 0 ev
Set 2 = lots of -ev
Set 3 = small +ev

Set 1 + Set 2 + Set 3 = (o ev) + (lots of -ev) + (small +ev) = -ev

None of this accounts for the fact that button raised. None of this accounts for position.

[esspo]

Touche'

Edit: But it only doesnt matter when button is bluffing. If you add the bluffing times + all the times button has SB beat you still get -ev imo. No algebra this time.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
You have three sets of possible hands button could have. Against 1 set you break even (acutally make a tinsy winsy bit). Against the second set you lose big. Aginst the third set (the hands that contain a 2) you make some money.

For you algebra nuts:

Set 1 ~ 0 ev
Set 2 = lots of -ev
Set 3 = small +ev

Set 1 + Set 2 + Set 3 = (o ev) + (lots of -ev) + (small +ev) = -ev

None of this accounts for the fact that button raised. None of this accounts for position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does anyone have one of those Nobel Prizes lying around? I think we have a contender here.

[esspo]

Jokes aside, calling down on auto pilot is not going to bring home the bacon.

[James282]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have three sets of possible hands button could have. Against 1 set you break even (acutally make a tinsy winsy bit). Against the second set you lose big. Aginst the third set (the hands that contain a 2) you make some money.

For you algebra nuts:

Set 1 ~ 0 ev
Set 2 = lots of -ev
Set 3 = small +ev

Set 1 + Set 2 + Set 3 = (o ev) + (lots of -ev) + (small +ev) = -ev

None of this accounts for the fact that button raised. None of this accounts for position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does anyone have one of those Nobel Prizes lying around? I think we have a contender here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't even fathom that people are discussing folding preflop. On the other hand, his EV calculations are pretty compelling. Tough to disagree with his precise "small set" and "big set" variables.
-James

[Chris Daddy Cool]

i'm convinced.

[flawless_victory]

[ QUOTE ]
You have three sets of possible hands button could have. Against 1 set you break even (acutally make a tinsy winsy bit). Against the second set you lose big. Aginst the third set (the hands that contain a 2) you make some money.

For you algebra nuts:

Set 1 ~ 0 ev
Set 2 = lots of -ev
Set 3 = small +ev

Set 1 + Set 2 + Set 3 = (o ev) + (lots of -ev) + (small +ev) = -ev

None of this accounts for the fact that button raised. None of this accounts for position.

[/ QUOTE ]lololol

[SA125]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to see a showdown you must bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good to see you posting esspo as I really like to read what you have to say. The thing I find most troubling about the EV of small pairs in spots like this h/u is the river.

When you are behind and go into check/call mode, you pay off. When you are ahead and go into check/call mode, you miss out on what I think is a crucial BB as far as the long term EV of playing them h/u is concerned.

I don't think c/r'ing the flop is enough to make these a long term winner when showing them down. Winning a river bet is necessary. I'm on the bottom end of the mid limits. How far off am I?

[AceHigh]

I like. I think the river check/call is wicked good, let's hopeless hands bluff at the pot.

[theBruiser500]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If button is reasonable, then yes, bad call. The flush draw got there. Very bad. There is no way you make money on the river by check-calling a reasonable player. A reasonable player just won't bluff enough in that spot to justify your call.

If you want to see a showdown you must bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

A reasonable player will bluff just enough so that it doesn't matter whether or not you call!

[/ QUOTE ]

what could they be bluffing with paluk?

[steveyz]

Yes, I'll call with hands like 98s or T9s, i.e. a lot of suited connectors or near connecetors. Very occasionally I might just call with something like 66 and see if I get a favorable flop, but I don't do it often nor do I really like doing it.

[esspo]

I think you are right on. In small pots like these the value of position goes way up because the rightness/wrongness of your decisions is amplified. Having the option to check behind or extract another BB on the river is a huge advantage in pots like these. These pots are SMALL. You have to be able to make money on the river bet to get into the black over the long run, imo.

[NLfool]

[ QUOTE ]
How in the world can this be right? 33 is either a huge dog or even money against any two cards. If you add everything up you get -ev. Plus you are out of position. Yuk.

[/ QUOTE ]

that's assuming arbitrarily (sp) the other guy gets to see all 5 cards all the time.

[Steve Giufre]

[ QUOTE ]
This board just baffle me now. Peter_rus defends bb with 34o, other people fold 33.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really thought you guys were joking when you were talking about folding this.

[Subfallen]

As 1800GAMBLER, Shania's most devoted 2+2'er, would say:

If you don't feel comfortable folding here, you're not check-raising the river enough. Remember the lady.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Peter_rus]

[ QUOTE ]
33 is either a huge dog or even money against any two cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't matter whether 33 huge dog or even money - the main thing is high cards will pay regardless of a board.

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
As 1800GAMBLER, Shania's most devoted 2+2'er, would say:

If you don't feel comfortable folding here, you're not check-raising the river enough. Remember the lady.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

someone decipher this cryptic message for me

[NLSoldier]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As 1800GAMBLER, Shania's most devoted 2+2'er, would say:

If you don't feel comfortable folding here, you're not check-raising the river enough. Remember the lady.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

someone decipher this cryptic message for me

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not sure about the shania stuff, but he makes an excellent point about river CRs.

[esspo]

OMG, the newest generation of posters haven't heard of Shania. Shania owns. Shania is the truth. Shania is the essence of winning poker. Subfallen's excellent post is an example of Shania in application. You must search the archives before making another post.

Go, search, learn.

[Subfallen]

Look here. (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Number=533592&amp;page=&amp;view=&amp;sb=5&amp;o =&amp;fpart=all&amp;vc=1)

[daryn]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In risposta di:</font><hr />
OMG, the newest generation of posters haven't heard of Shania. Shania owns. Shania is the truth. Shania is the essence of winning poker. Subfallen's excellent post is an example of Shania in application. You must search the archives before making another post.

Go, search, learn.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah.. the newest generation of posters.. yeah that's it.

i am familiar with shania, i was asking about the checkraise comment. i don't get it

[Subfallen]

Lol. Daryn, you vacationing, palindromic-post-count n00b, where did you get 8668 posts??

Anyways, I was suggesting that your check-raise frequency should be such that people will not value bet hands worse than 33 on this river. If this c/r, bet, check sequence always means you're very weak, you probably have to call here because people might be trying to bluff you out with just about anything.

However, if this line could also be setting a c/r for value, it becomes much harder for your opponent to comfortably bet this river with anything worse with say, a K or the flush. And you can comfortably check-fold, thus saving a bet.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OMG, the newest generation of posters haven't heard of Shania. Shania owns. Shania is the truth. Shania is the essence of winning poker. Subfallen's excellent post is an example of Shania in application. You must search the archives before making another post.

Go, search, learn.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah.. the newest generation of posters.. yeah that's it.

i am familiar with shania, i was asking about the checkraise comment. i don't get it

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe he's saying that you should be check-raising the river enough that opponents will be much less likely to bet the river when you check to them. I don't fully understand it though.

[esspo]

The post was more for others, but I admit I didn't look at your uber post count.

Shania owns.

[esspo]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe he's saying that you should be check-raising the river enough that opponents will be much less likely to bet the river when you check to them. I don't fully understand it though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems like you understand it perfectly to me.