River Check-raisery?

[Piiop]

Party Poker 10/20 Hold'em (10 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Villain is a 26/12/1.5 over about 100 hands.

Preflop: Hero is UTG+1 with T/images/graemlins/heart.gif, T/images/graemlins/club.gif.
<font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#666666">5 folds</font>, Button calls, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>.

Flop: (5.50 SB) 5/images/graemlins/club.gif, 2/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, Button calls.

Turn: (3.75 BB) 3/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, Button calls.

River: (5.75 BB) Q/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks...

Good plan or bad plan?

[Moneyline]

I like check/calling, but I don't think a check/raise would accomplish much. By checking you might induce a bluff, but if you then raise your opponent's bluff he will fold and you will win the same as if you had called. If you are behind and you check/raise, you lose an additional bet that you wouldn't have lost from check/calling. If your opponent will call you down with hands like ace-high, then I like value betting in this spot. I'm not sure how to interpret the numbers at the top of your post, but regardless I think your options here are either value betting or check/calling.

[Piiop]

The numbers are PokerTracker stats. It means this opponent is slightly loose and aggressive.

[ QUOTE ]
By checking you might induce a bluff, but if you then raise your opponent's bluff he will fold and you will win the same as if you had called. If you are behind and you check/raise, you lose an additional bet that you wouldn't have lost from check/calling. If your opponent will call you down with hands like ace-high, then I like value betting in this spot.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's true that checking will induce a bluff, and this villain is aggressive, so I would think that he will bet when I check to him on this river no matter what his hand his. Sometimes the villain may even think he is value betting.

From this particular villain, I think I would've heard from a Q or a set before the river. I think it's very likely he has something like 66-99 or maybe a suited ace. The only hand I have to worry about is a backdoor club flush.

So, if he will bet everytime I check, then checking is clearly better than betting. Betting doesn't give him the chance to bluff and I only gain a BB when he has a mid pair and calls with it.

So it's between check/raising and check/calling. Check-calling I only gain/lose 1 BB. If I check-raise, he'll fold complete bluffs, so I still only gain the 1 BB. Yet, when he has 66-99, he may call the checkraise out of confusion, because he thinks I'm "making a move", because he thinks his hand may still be best, or he may not even be thinking. So, whatever the reason he calls, whenever he does I make 2 BB's instead of 1. The only times I have a problem is when he 3bets because he backed into a flush or slowplayed a set/straight. So, I guess it just comes down to a math problem of how often he'll have those hands and call/fold/3bet the checkraise. Without actually doing the math, I would have to estimate that it's a winning play, no?

[Redd]

You're folding to a 3-bet?

It seems -EV to me because I don't think he'll call with a worse hand very often; his stats are decent and it's a scary board. I'd prolly check-call it, but I'm a microlimiter fish.

[Piiop]

[ QUOTE ]
You're folding to a 3-bet?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think he'll call with a worse hand very often

[/ QUOTE ]

This may be the case.

[ QUOTE ]
it's a scary board

[/ QUOTE ]

What about this board is scary?

[Moneyline]

[ QUOTE ]
It's true that checking will induce a bluff, and this villain is aggressive, so I would think that he will bet when I check to him on this river no matter what his hand his. Sometimes the villain may even think he is value betting.

[/ QUOTE ]

If your opponent is that aggressive then I agree checking is preferable to betting. However, if your opponent is aggressive I would suspect you would frequently have already heard from him by now (probably on the flop) if he’s holding 99-66. Also, I don’t think you can totally discount that he has a queen. If you have a reputation for pushing hard heads/up, then waiting for the river to raise is not out of the question with top pair.

Personally, I don’t know what to put your opponent on here. Ace high, a pocket pair, three queens, flush, A5, wheel, or even total garbage are all possibilities. Of all those possibilities, there aren’t many that you have beat that won’t fold to your check/raise, just a pocket pair and maybe A5 (and there’s no guarantee that a pocket pair would call here). There also aren’t any better hands that will fold to your check/raise, except maybe for JJ (another hand that I think you would have heard from by now). So all-in-all I still think this adds up to a check/call.

Just my opinion...

[Brunger]

He seems aggressive enough to value bet 77 and he probably will not fold it. Plus you gain some bets from silly bluffs you only miss on some occasional Ace high calls. I like it /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Piiop]

[ QUOTE ]
However, if your opponent is aggressive I would suspect you would frequently have already heard from him by now (probably on the flop) if he’s holding 99-66. Also, I don’t think you can totally discount that he has a queen. If you have a reputation for pushing hard heads/up, then waiting for the river to raise is not out of the question with top pair.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not so sure he would've raised the flop with 66-99, though it is possible I guess. I do think there's no way he has a Q here. He definitely would've raised the flop or turn. I doubt the villain's plan was waiting until the river because of any read he had on me. I don't think there were nearly enough hands for him to get this kind of read (if he was even paying attention).

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I don’t know what to put your opponent on here. Ace high, a pocket pair, three queens, flush, A5, wheel, or even total garbage are all possibilities. Of all those possibilities, there aren’t many that you have beat that won’t fold to your check/raise, just a pocket pair and maybe A5 (and there’s no guarantee that a pocket pair would call here). There also aren’t any better hands that will fold to your check/raise, except maybe for JJ (another hand that I think you would have heard from by now). So all-in-all I still think this adds up to a check/call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's some mathematical analysis:

There are 3 groups of hands he could have here: a worse made hand, a better hand, or nothing. I could break down each group into actual hands, but I don't think that's really neccessary.

When I check-call I gain 1 BB from a worse made hand, lose 1 BB to a better hand, and gain 1 BB from a pure bluff.

When I check-raise I gain 1 BB from a worse hand + X% of a BB depending on how often that hand calls, I lose 2 BBs to a better hand (I'm folding to a 3 bet), and I still gain 1 BB from a pure bluff (since he will fold to the checkraise).

So let's estimate that he will have a worse made hand 80% of the time, a better hand 5% of the time, and nothing 15% of the time.

Check-calling will amount to me gaining .9 BB. (.8)1 - (.05)1 + (.15) 1 = .9

Check-raising is (.8)1 + (x)1 - (.05)2 + (.15)1. So .85 + x. For a check-raise to be more profitable than a check-call, he only has to call 6% of the time. That's not very often.

Ok, so let's change the numbers. Howbout this time he has a worse hand 50% of the time, a better hand 20%, and nothing 30% of the time.

Check-calling (.5)1 - (.2)1 + (.3)1 = .6 BB

Check-raising (.5)1 + (x)1 - (.2)2 + (.3)1. So, this time he needs to call a check-raise more than 20% of the time. That's still not very often.

I hope my math is right, but it looks like he doesn't need to call the check-raise very often to make this a better play the calling. Also, this is assuming he will be betting 100% of the time when I check to him on the river, which is opponent specific.

[Moneyline]

It's not my intention to be rude, but I think you may be skewing your data in order to fit your conclusion that check/raising is better. (Maybe "skewing" is a bit harsh, but I think you are way off on your numbers.)

With a worse made hand, I'm thinking specifically of A high here, I would expect most opponents to check behind and they certainly wouldn't call a check/raise if they bet. Unless this guy never folds at the end you can discount that you will get a call from that hand. The other made hands you beat are a pocket pair, a pair of fives, and maybe A3 or A2. I don't think you can expect A3 or A2 to call a check raise, and I'd guess A5 is a big dog to call a check/raise as well. There's (IMO) a good chance a pocket pair would have raised the flop... (FWIW, I'm an aggressive player, and I would have raised the flop with something like 77.). Even if he does have a pocket pair, I think most players, even aggressive ones, would fold something like 66 here. So basically I think your numbers are off. I think your opponent will have a made hand that you beat more along the lines of 20%-30% of the time, and of those times he's check/raised I think he'll rarely call.

There's the added problem that if your opponent is very aggressive, or just pissed off that you check/raised him, he may go to 3 bets on a bluff or worse made hand. Granted, I don't see this happening often, but when it does it's a catastrophe because the pot is now large and you've given it away.

Again, I don't mean to be rude. I just strongly disagree with your conclusion.

[aK13]

I check/call here, and I don't think it's close.

[Redd]

[ QUOTE ]
What about this board is scary?

[/ QUOTE ]

The flush just hit and the top (broadway) card just paired. IMHO from the Villain's perspective an unexpected check-raise when this happens could represent either a flush or trips, either of which you could have quite possibly just made.

Also regarding your math; I'm inclined to believe that he'll have a worse made hand much less than 50% of the time; and even in this case, I don't think he's calling the c/r with a worse hand over 20% of the time.

I'm not sure if this is important because we'd be checking either way, but do your numbers reflect the times that Villain checks behind with a worse hand and you make nothing?