Basic theory on river betting question

[PLOlover]

Ok I just was betting a straight the whole way, out of position, and then the board pairs the river against my lone opponent, I checked and somewhat stupidly called his pot sized bet, which he made with the bottom set turned full house on the river.

Should I bet out half the pot or maybe 1/3 of the pot to prevent him potting it? Is this known as a "blocking bet"?

Thanks.

[Acesover8s]

[ QUOTE ]
Should I bet out half the pot or maybe 1/3 of the pot to prevent him potting it? Is this known as a "blocking bet"?


[/ QUOTE ]

Against weak opposition blocking bets can be good. Strong players recognize these bets to be easy bluffing opportunites, which is why very strong opponents occasionally make similairly small bets on the river with the nuts.

[joewatch]

Check-fold, or make a small blocking bet.

[aceferret]

I think it depends on the hand...If there was no flush draw on flop, then what else could he be calling you with when there is a str8 on the board. So no flush draw on flop it's a check fold.

Now if there is a flush draw on the flop...he could be calling you with 2pair/set or the flush. When a scare card hits on river, a case can be made for a blocking bet, but i prefer to check-call or check-fold and base my decision on the villians history. Most villians will just check if they were drawing for a boat and missed. Only a select few will pot the river(especially at the lower levels) when a scare card hits that does not help their hand.

An interesting aside to this post. How many of you pot the river when it's checked to you because a scare hits that does not help your hand. I believe it is very profitable to do so when the three flush hits that misses both of you.

[PLOlover]

[ QUOTE ]
An interesting aside to this post. How many of you pot the river when it's checked to you because a scare hits that does not help your hand. I believe it is very profitable to do so when the three flush hits that misses both of you.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is actually the next piece of my game I am putting into practice, when to bluff the river when checked to. I've done it a handful of times into medium pots pretty much with success, which for some reason always surprised me when I took the pot.

[Spellmen]

Betting on the river when checked to is a feel type move. In general, I do it alot when checked to by a player with around VP$IP <25 and generally won't do it if it's not heads up or 3 way. This is where you have to take the rock's money, because they usually aren't giving it away when you make your hand

[Snoogins47]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
An interesting aside to this post. How many of you pot the river when it's checked to you because a scare hits that does not help your hand. I believe it is very profitable to do so when the three flush hits that misses both of you.

[/ QUOTE ]


This is actually the next piece of my game I am putting into practice, when to bluff the river when checked to. I've done it a handful of times into medium pots pretty much with success, which for some reason always surprised me when I took the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm consistently surprised whenever I take down pots, much moreso in Omaha than in other games. I don't even play much PLO, but I can't even count the number of times I've bet, thinking "I have to try this, but this is so obvious that one of these times they're going to play back at me" and somehow it never happens unless they have the immortal nuts. Monsters under the bed ABOUND in PLO.

Anyway, I like a smaller bet against a lot of opponents, especially the passive ones, when your hand has showdown value, but it's unlikely a frightened, passive opponent has the stones enough, and a hand enough, to raise the river. And it's hard to want to make a sizeable raise for him.

That said, there seems to be a growing portion of the poker population that prides themselves on betting constantly, whether in this case it be to take away the pot, or get "value" out of some stupid holding. Especially if they're on the looser side of life post flop, check-call is probably a vastly superior line to take with a straight here.


Yes that's right I just used like 800 words to say "Bet into a passive opponent, and check-call into a bluffer."

[willmay3]

My general thought on "blocking bets" is that they only work on good players, and a good player wouldn't have been in this hand with a underset and a nice str8 board. What is more likely to happen against new or inexperienced PLO players is that when they hit their fullhouse they are going to reraise you the pot, so why waste the money?

[ QUOTE ]
An interesting aside to this post. How many of you pot the river when it's checked to you because a scare hits that does not help your hand. I believe it is very profitable to do so when the three flush hits that misses both of you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, as above, it depends on who you are playing. In a shallow money game, with inexperienced players, bluffing should be tossed out the window, IMHO. I am a VERY tight player in my regular game, but I hear the same thing over and over again: "I know you've got it, but I just have to see it."

Profit in $200 buy in or less PLO games comes from Peddling the nuts and being paid off, not from your brilliant position pot bet bluffs, IMO.

As you move up, against knowledgable players, this does become a bigger factor of your game. However, those players will tend to recognize what you are doing if you habitually do it, and you are in danger of getting played back at.