AA Hand - Confused at the river [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

View Full Version : AA Hand - Confused at the river

PokerCat69

05-24-2005, 12:43 PM

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

Preflop: Hero is BB with A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, A/images/graemlins/spade.gif.
1 fold, UTG+1 calls, 1 fold, MP2 calls, 2 folds, Button calls, 1 fold, Hero raises, UTG+1 calls, MP2 calls, Button calls.

Flop: (8.50 SB) A/images/graemlins/club.gif, 8/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 3/images/graemlins/club.gif (4 players)
Hero bets, UTG+1 folds, MP2 calls, Button calls.

Turn: (5.75 BB) 4/images/graemlins/club.gif (3 players)
Hero bets, MP2 folds, Button calls.

River: (7.75 BB) J/images/graemlins/club.gif (2 players)
Hero bets, Button raises, Hero folds.

Final Pot: 10.75 BB

First off I hate the river play, I assume check/call is the best play here, but I could be wrong.
Also I was wondering, if there was another player in this hand at the river would this become a check/fold?

awval999

05-24-2005, 12:47 PM

Definetly check/call the river. Throw up when he shows you the 2 of clubs.

I'd still call the river raise because I like to chip spew. Are you good 1 time in 11. Hmm....

tiltaholic

05-24-2005, 01:05 PM

this hand was played perfectly.

check calling the river is not good.

search "clarkmeister's theorem" for discussion.

topspin

05-24-2005, 01:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
this hand was played perfectly.

check calling the river is not good.

search "clarkmeister's theorem" for discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd bet/call. If I had just TPTK I'd agree with you, but I am not folding a set here.

gvibes

05-24-2005, 01:52 PM

There was a thread in the small stakes forum. In a "Clarkmeister's" post, a (I think) respected poster gave his own theorem - never fold top set on the river for one bet. I check/call this river.

istewart

05-24-2005, 01:54 PM

Dynasty said it recently in the Small Stakes forum, and a bunch of others have said that Clarkmeister's Theorem doesn't apply to hands as strong as this.

jrz1972

05-24-2005, 01:57 PM

I only adopt the bet/fold line when I think I can pretty confidently fold to a raise. I am not folding top set for one more bet here, so bet/fold is out. Bet/call seems spewey on this board, so I'm voting for check/call.

Aaron W.

05-24-2005, 02:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
this hand was played perfectly.

check calling the river is not good.

search "clarkmeister's theorem" for discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to insist that somebody give me a reference (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=micro&Number=2305261&F orum=All_Forums&Words=Clarkmeister&Searchpage=0&Li mit=25&Main=2303919&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name =32&daterange=1&newerval=1&newertype=y&olderval=&o ldertype=&bodyprev=#Post2305261) to where Clarkmeister suggests that the proper river play is to bet-fold. As far as I can tell, he only states that it is uniformly better to bet out rather than to check. I have not yet run into anyone who can show me where he states that you should always fold after betting.

MrWookie47

05-24-2005, 02:25 PM

I agree. Always bet/folding with no trump has to be wrong. If you're in a situation where Clarkmeister applies, bet, and whether to call or fold is read dependent. I'll call against Bluffy the vampire slayer.

I find the argument about check/calling with a set compelling, but I'm not quite convinced. You can't really fold to a raise with a hand that strong like you could with top pair. Does this apply if you hold the deuce of trump as well? Does anyone have the link to that thread?

PokerCat69

05-24-2005, 02:42 PM

Assume villian does not have the flush. Is he more likely to call a river bet, or bluff if you checked to him?
I tend to believe you'd see a bluff more often then a call without the flush.

With a check/call you'd take the pot when he checks, and perhaps sometimes gain that extra bluff bet.
When you bet out, I think the guy without a flush folds, and you risk being raised (which happened to me)

I read up on the theory of betting a 4 flush board, but didn't see it mention how to respond to a raise.
Is it bet/call or bet/fold?

istewart

05-24-2005, 02:43 PM

I would definitely like to get to a SD here, but am still unsure of the best way.

This is a good thread similar to this: here (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=mediumholdem&Number=193710 4&Forum=All_Forums&Words=%2Bclarkmeister%27s%20%2B theorem&Searchpage=0&Limit=300&Main=1930547&Search =true&where=sub&Name=&daterange=1&newerval=&newert ype=&olderval=&oldertype=&bodyprev=#Post1937104).

TomBrooks

05-24-2005, 03:51 PM

tiltaholic

05-24-2005, 03:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I only adopt the bet/fold line when I think I can pretty confidently fold to a raise. I am not folding top set for one more bet here, so bet/fold is out. Bet/call seems spewey on this board, so I'm voting for check/call.

[/ QUOTE ]

i dunno, i mean, i hear what you're saying - but i don't think our ability to restrain ourselves (and not pay off a raise) is relevant to whether it's correct to bet or check.

tiltaholic

05-24-2005, 04:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this hand was played perfectly.

check calling the river is not good.

search "clarkmeister's theorem" for discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm going to insist that somebody give me a reference (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=micro&Number=2305261&F orum=All_Forums&Words=Clarkmeister&Searchpage=0&Li mit=25&Main=2303919&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name =32&daterange=1&newerval=1&newertype=y&olderval=&o ldertype=&bodyprev=#Post2305261) to where Clarkmeister suggests that the proper river play is to bet-fold. As far as I can tell, he only states that it is uniformly better to bet out rather than to check. I have not yet run into anyone who can show me where he states that you should always fold after betting.

[/ QUOTE ]

hi - i'm looking for it. but i think the implication is that the reason it is better to bet than to check is that much better hands will simply call, fearing a higher flush and only REALLY better hands will raise, assuming villian is a standard relatively passive opponent. thus, calling the raise is not a good idea against this type of opponent.

in the absence of stated reads, i think this situation qualifies. i don't think betting the river and always folding to a raise is good.

bubbahotep

05-24-2005, 04:27 PM

grunching...

I check/call but it looks grim and I'm probably giving money away. I dont think your bet/fold in this situation is SO bad at all. Against two check/fold makes sense to me. Overall I would say good play - you are stronger willed than I am.

gopnik

05-24-2005, 04:29 PM

I like how you played it. Betting the river is better than check/calling because he'll bet a hand that beats you and check behind with a hand that you beat.

Mister Z

05-24-2005, 04:43 PM

<grunch>

Heads up, I like your river play. You can pretty comfortably fold to the river re-raise, and in some cases you may get someone with a very weak club to fold (not often, but occasionally). If you just check, you lose the very small fold equity you may have in the hand.

Add another opponent and I would check - if it went bet/call I fold. If it went bet/fold I would call and squinch my butt cheeks and hope the other guy is clubless. Last night I won a pot diamondless on a board with 4 diamonds against 4 opponents (checked around on the river of course)- with a pair of 8's. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif