Big Set Gets Gay Bet on the River

[imported_leader]

UTG is 38/8/.5

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (9 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is Button with T/images/graemlins/heart.gif, T/images/graemlins/club.gif.
UTG calls, <font color="#666666">5 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, UTG calls.

Flop: (5.50 SB) Q/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 9/images/graemlins/club.gif, T/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
UTG checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, UTG calls.

Turn: (3.75 BB) 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
UTG checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, UTG calls.

River: (5.75 BB) 6/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">UTG bets</font>, Hero....

Well he has something. A guy with his AF isn't making to many desperation bluffs. The question is does he have something I can beat enough to raise.

[ihardlyknowher]

[ QUOTE ]
The question is does he have something I can beat enough to raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. Looks like FPS with a flopped straight. Be happy he sucks and you did not lose more.

[toss]

78s is possible, but so is 55, 66, and two pair. I raise and call a 3-bet.

[RatFink]

Nope. With a .5'er I'd expect to see 78 there, and would not be shocked to see KJ or QQ

[einbert]

raise

[JoshuaD]

[ QUOTE ]
78s is possible, but so is 55, 66, and two pair. I raise and call a 3-bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

[DCWildcat]

Raise, call a 3-bet

[jskills]

I cannot see raising the river here. Why is he suddenly springing to life? (let's remember his post flop aggression is 0.5)

The river card had to have helped him. So what range of hands could he hold that would be helped by the 6? 66 and 78 are basically it, no? And I'd have to find 66 less likely given the 3 overcards on the flop.

I think the % of time this bet is a bluff (or villan holding 66) is low enough to justify just calling and not raising.

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
Looks like FPS with a flopped straight.

[/ QUOTE ]
What leads you to believe that a flopped hand is more likely than something that got there on the turn/river?

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
UTG is 38/8/.5

[/ QUOTE ]
As much as I want to raise - I don't think I could.

[imported_CaseClosed326]

How many hands is this read?

[ihardlyknowher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Looks like FPS with a flopped straight.

[/ QUOTE ]
What leads you to believe that a flopped hand is more likely than something that got there on the turn/river?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I don't see 66 sticking around that long when 3 overcards flop. I guess 78 is a real possiblity though.

[Grease]

I definitely raise and call a 3-bet here.

[Grease]

An addendum:

I assume that even LP's can take a shot at the pot here, but if he is uber LP and has never tried to steal, then I would be more hesitant to raise.

If you can't say for sure due to sample size, then I would be much more likely to pop it.

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I don't see 66 sticking around that long when 3 overcards flop.

[/ QUOTE ]
When one of the overcards is NOT an Ace or a King I think it's a lot more likely that 66 calls down.

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
If you can't say for sure due to sample size, then I would be much more likely to pop it.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you should be less likely to raise if this is the case.

Villian has to be betting a worse hand here more often than bluffing AND leading with a better hand for Hero's raise to be profitable here. IMO, we're not getting called enough by the bluff (semi-bluff) and probably getting 3-bet a good percentage of the time by a better hand. Also, sometimes a worse hand that will bet won't call the raise.

[hobbsmann]

[ QUOTE ]
How many hands is this read?

[/ QUOTE ]
this is important. If this guys AF is .5 through over a 100 hands I'd probably call, but anything less I'd go with the raise/ call a 3 bet line.

[Grease]

[ QUOTE ]
Villian has to be betting a worse hand here more often than bluffing AND leading with a better hand for Hero's raise to be profitable here. IMO, we're not getting called enough by the bluff (semi-bluff) and probably getting 3-bet a good percentage of the time by a better hand. Also, sometimes a worse hand that will bet won't call the raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

All good points. I concur that the raise won't be called by much and you're only getting 3-bet by hands that destroy you.

[DMBFan23]

calling a 3 bet against this guy has to be -EV if the read is solid

[Gordon Scott]

I can't see how you lose much with a call in this spot. With a 38 he may have the set of 6s or hit his kicker with Q6 /images/graemlins/club.gif or /images/graemlins/diamond.gif but it looks enough like a big hand to just call.

If you raise one thing I factor in is he will reraise with a better hand and fold a missed draw stone cold bluff.

[imported_leader]

[ QUOTE ]
How many hands is this read?

[/ QUOTE ]

150

[cgwahl]

I'd call it without thinking. He probably just made two pair.

[PhatPots]

I think that is a raise. I would also call a bet. UTG is very loose. He could be holding Q6s or something stupid. I think you would be the majority of his holdings. You could worry about the straight (But way too tight), but cmon, he is very fishy. Raise him!

Pots

[jay1313]

I have had sooooo many AQ busted by the Qx that I agree with previous poster Q6s is as likely as 78s and fish will bet out the two pair. Raise, call the 3 bet.

[toss]

Results?

[jay1313]

In addition, if he has 78 he is only going to call your raise because he is going to fear the KJ. I still like the raise.

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that is a raise. I would also call a bet. UTG is very loose... ...he is very fishy. Raise him!

[/ QUOTE ]
Serious spewage.

Loose (or fishy) does not equal aggressive. Passive players (such as villian in this hand) are not leading the river here often enough with garbage to make our raise profitable.

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
I have had sooooo many AQ busted by the Qx that I agree with previous poster Q6s is as likely as 78s and fish will bet out the two pair. Raise, call the 3 bet.

[/ QUOTE ]
&lt;major sarcasm&gt;This sounds like an wonderful justification to raise.&lt;/major sarcasm&gt;

Just because you've taken some bad beats with AQ sure the hell doesn't mean that we should be raising here. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[ihardlyknowher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess I don't see 66 sticking around that long when 3 overcards flop.

[/ QUOTE ]
When one of the overcards is NOT an Ace or a King I think it's a lot more likely that 66 calls down.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, forgot this was a steal situation.

[johnd192]

My first instinct would be to call because of the WTF factor.
I think it would be much better to raise and call a 3bet.
I have seen many 2/4 players who call down with a lower pp to the board in hopes of hitting the two outter. Somewhat decent chance that he has some whacky two pair. If he has 78s then it's ok to cry.

[crunchy1]

Man.... this second page is just spewing with horrible advice.

[Borno]

I call down. I'd say 90% of the time he has you beat. These are the times we have to remember to think of party poker and thank them for awful players.. just so we don't throw a punch at the monitor.

[jay1313]

OK my apologies for the whining. But in reality, this set is extremely well disguised. What does the villain put us on where they don't think their two pair is good? I am sure mathematically you can show me this is -EV but I still think it is just as possible to be two pair as a straight.

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
What does the villain put us on where they don't think their two pair is good?

[/ QUOTE ]
First off - with the stats given in the OP I'm not giving Villian credit for thinking. I'm also not giving him credit for bluffing too much or thinking that a rivered 2-pair is good enough to lead with. Players as passive as this guy post-flop are much more content to check and call unless they have the nuts or damn close to it.

[ QUOTE ]
I am sure mathematically you can show me this is -EV but I still think it is just as possible to be two pair as a straight.

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe you missed this earlier. I think I summed it up pretty well...

[ QUOTE ]
Villian has to be betting a worse hand here more often than bluffing AND leading with a better hand for Hero's raise to be profitable here

[/ QUOTE ]

This ends up being a situation where we're only getting paid off part of the time we're ahead but, we're paying off 100% of the time we're behind. That's NOT good for Hero. This should be a call.

[krimson]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd call it without thinking. He probably just made two pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

If your read is that he just made 2 pair why would you just call? I think your missing the point of the hand.

[einbert]

Our hand is totally disguised due to the fact that he has just been check/calling the whole way. We haven't shown any real strength so villian could just as easily put us on AK/KK/AA/AQ as anything else.

Aggression factors take a long time to converge, much longer than VPIP or PFR. This guy could really be very aggressive postflop, except that he has not been hitting flops hard since we have been getting data on him.

.5 PAF for a guy with VPIP ~40 is something like 1.0 PAF for a guy with VPIP ~20. Now that isn't extremely aggressive but it's not extremely passive here.

Villian could easily have and will pay off a raise with two pair or a set. Two pair or 66 is much more likely than a weirdly played straight. However, he could even be betting TPGK here in order to make sure that we don't check behind with ace high. He could be betting a very wide range of hands here. Not raising this bet is leaving money on the table.

[crunchy1]

What do you think the percentages are for the times that Villian's river lead is a:

(A) Bluff
(B) Lead with a hand we're ahead of
(C) Lead with a hand we're behind

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you think the percentages are for the times that Villian's river lead is a:

(A) Bluff
(B) Lead with a hand we're ahead of
(C) Lead with a hand we're behind

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the vast vast majority of the time it's a lead with a hand we're ahead of, not a bluff.

He could also be doing one of those "I'm going to call with my pair anyway, so I might as well bet it so he doesn't check behind ace high" then realize that he doesn't have the willpower to not pay off your raise.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
with the stats given in the OP I'm not giving Villian credit for thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a big mistake. These guys do have thought processes even though they are often very different from our thought processes. Learning to get into their heads is necessary to extract maximum value from these guys in all situations.

[crunchy1]

I'm assuming that we're ALWAYS losing 3BBs when we're behind.

When we're ahead we sometimes make 1BB and sometimes 2BB.

This sounds like a losing proposition to me and a good reason to check. I feel like I've said this a million times in this thread so I'll stop now.

[einbert]

Why do you feel it is so necessary to call the three-bet?

If you are going to always call the three-bet, your numbers are probably somewhere close. But it still depends on the ratio of us being ahead to us being behind.

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you feel it is so necessary to call the three-bet?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand how we can justify raising and folding to a 3-bet.

[crunchy1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
with the stats given in the OP I'm not giving Villian credit for thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a big mistake. These guys do have thought processes even though they are often very different from our thought processes. Learning to get into their heads is necessary to extract maximum value from these guys in all situations.

[/ QUOTE ]
I totally agree. In the case of a Villian with stats like this I think we can generally assume that they call, call, call. Then they hit there hand and the lightbulb turns and and they think: "Oh. Now it's time to bet".

A made hand as big as 2-pair or a set from a player like this isn't waiting until the river to get agressive and if it is - why wouldn't he go for the checkraise? Hero has shown no signs of letting up.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
A made hand as big as 2-pair or a set from a player like this isn't waiting until the river to get agressive and if it is - why wouldn't he go for the checkraise? Hero has shown no signs of letting up.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then why wouldn't 78 go for the checkraise? This hand is pretty well disguised too.

This river donkbet by loosepassive players when hands aren't well defined at all is often a bet with a mediocre hand hoping to get paid off by ace high. I agree that if villian has two pair he played it strangely, but he might have just hit two pair with Q6. He might have been "slowplaying" QT or Q9 or 99 or T9 and decided oops, hero might not bet the river with a lot of hands so I will bet to make sure we get one bet in. He wasn't aggressive in the hand before because he wasn't worried about his two pair or set getting drawn out on -- these hands are monsters after all, and he wants you to keep putting bets in with them.

[eh923]

Is it really a steal situation when UTG calls pre-flop? Still, 66 is more likely to stick with those overcards than an A or K.

[QTip]

I'm going to give my 2 cents here although it's not much different than what's being said.

I've been observing these donk river bets for sometime with players with similar stats. The overwhelming majority of the time, it would appear that they have the mindset of "I'm going to call anyway, so I bet." It's like somewhere out there they learned to bet a river OOP or whatever. Anyway, with a hand of this strength, I'm treating this bet with extreme disdain and raising. Villain will pay off here with a very large range of hands. I probably fold to a 3 bet close to never, but even then, sometimes villain (yes, even with passive stats) will 3 bet with a small set here, or maybe even top 2.

I think we're missing out on bets here not raising with this monster hand.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why do you feel it is so necessary to call the three-bet?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't understand how we can justify raising and folding to a 3-bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree we should call a three-bet here.

If you think villian will three-bet some hands that we beat here, doesn't it follow logically that he will bet out with a lot of hands we beat (for value)?

[eh923]

(sorry if this duplicates another poster)

I often use the same line that UTG used here when I have something, but expect the person to keep bluffing at me. Let's say he has KQ. He checks giving the raiser respect for a potential hand. If the hero checks behind on the flop, UTG has a green light to bet the turn and river (barring scare cards that is). If the hero keeps firing, UTG loses the minimum if he's behind, but extracts the most if he's ahead.

As others have said, I'd raise, and make a crying call expecting KJ if there's a 3-bet.

[QTip]

[ QUOTE ]
As others have said, I'd raise, and make a crying call expecting KJ if there's a 3-bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've not read this whole thread yet, so I'm not sure if this has been discussed yet, and I know it's been debated several times in several forums.

However, with a VPIP of 40, I think you need to consider villain a bit more aggressive than someone with a VPIP of 25 and an aggression level of .5.

Honestly, I think we're ahead a very good % of the time here, and I think there's plenty of times that he's calling or worse with his hand.

[imported_leader]

[ QUOTE ]
Results?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well...I raised. He 3-bet. I called. He had 8 /images/graemlins/spade.gif 7 /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[DeuceKicker]

Two quick points:

1) I think too much is being made of the .5 AF. If it's post-flop aggression factor (and if I'm remembering the formula correctly) his AF for this hand would be .5, so it's not like he's doing anything outrageously incongruent with his stats.

2) Do you think any gay members of this forum might find the term "Gay Bet" insensitive and/or offensive? 'Donkbet' may be lame, but at least it only offends the equine sector of this site's readership.

[LoosenUp]

[ QUOTE ]
78s is possible, but so is 55, 66, and two pair. I raise and call a 3-bet.

[/ QUOTE ]
exactly

[imported_leader]

[ QUOTE ]
2) Do you think any gay members of this forum might find the term "Gay Bet" insensitive and/or offensive? 'Donkbet' may be lame, but at least it only offends the equine sector of this site's readership.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll do my best to be more PC in the future.

[LoosenUp]

[ QUOTE ]
I call down. I'd say 90% of the time he has you beat. These are the times we have to remember to think of party poker and thank them for awful players.. just so we don't throw a punch at the monitor.

[/ QUOTE ]

How was that 90% derived?

[cgwahl]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd call it without thinking. He probably just made two pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

If your read is that he just made 2 pair why would you just call? I think your missing the point of the hand.

[/ QUOTE ]


I unfortunately accidently posted this without finishing my thought.

My belief is he might have just made 2 pair, but there is still too good a chance he got the straight...plus, with the three possible straights out there I just don't like raising when he just decided to wake up.

[cgwahl]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Results?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well...I raised. He 3-bet. I called. He had 8 /images/graemlins/spade.gif 7 /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Eesh, bet you're happy he played that one wrong...