KT hand (fixed now)

[AdamL]

44 hands on LP-P. LP-P's in front of me too. In fact, it was a great table.

Party Poker (9 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is Button with K/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, T/images/graemlins/spade.gif.
2 LP-P's limp (50% 4% kinda guys) and I raise. BB and ONE of the limpers call.

Flop: T/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 3/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
LP-P(BB) checks, UTG+1 checks, I bet, LP-P calls.

Turn: 3/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
LP-P checks. I bet. He calls.

River: 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
LP-P checks, I bet, LP-P raises, I fold.

Final Pot:

[AdamL]

And Jesus H Christ, is the hand converter still having hiccups?

Will the real working hand converter link please stand up?

remove "texas" from the HH

[hemstock]

Try removing the word texas from the HH

[AdamL]

Ok thanks fellas. I manualy edited the hand for now.

[hemstock]

I would always call this for 1BB

[AdamL]

I would sometimes.

[Baseballer02]

[ QUOTE ]
I would always call this for 1BB

[/ QUOTE ]

Would a passive opponent be check-raising anything that hero beats at this point?

[hemstock]

If he really really passive like .50 after 200 hands fold.
[owise] Getting about 10 to 1 with top pair, I would definetly call.

[PokerSparky]

My read would have to be very very good in order for me to fold this hand. With only 44 hands logged, I pay off here.

[AdamL]

If I didn't think the fold was somewhat questionable, I wouldn't have posted the hand... BUT...

I think the decision to call is a lot more marginal than I gather you guys do. Do you really think passive players like to bluff check-raise rivers at least 10% of the time? 1 out of 10 rivers they bluff check-raise?

I don't think they do. I think you make calls like this once in a while in order to prevent passive players from starting to get tricky. You have to pay them now and then to keep them passive.

I don't at all think it's a case of he bluff checkraises the river at least 10% of the time in this spot.

You yourselves are aggressive players. Ask yourself, do you bluff check-raise rivers 10% of the time? I doubt it. Do you do it even 1 river in 50? Look at your PT histories and find your river bluff check-raises.

Part of the problem is that they rarely work, so even aggressive players don't do them often.

Anyhow, FWIW. My 2 cents.

[SavageMiser]

The problem is not knowing if he's really that passive. Forty-four hands isn't all that much, four orbits. I call. Then make a note.

[DavidC]

Pot size on the river?

[AdamL]

After he raises I think it's 9.75BB

[WSOP Bound]

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is not knowing if he's really that passive. Forty-four hands isn't all that much, four orbits. I call. Then make a note.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you put villian on here that we beat? I think that OP had a good point. If you were villian how often do you c/r this river scare card as a bluff? I don't think that it comes anywhere near 10% of the time. Bet out with a good read maybe, but not checkraise. Villian appears to be LP-P which would make it even less likely, but even a strong TAG player is unlikely to make this move often.

You need to see this without a solid solid read, and 44 hands doesnt give u that.
cdl

[AdamL]

I don't agree about the 44 hands thing. It doesn't take more than 44 hands to spot a fish. What I should have said was that I'm actually watching the table too here, not just using PT. I'm not even multi-tabling here.

I just didn't expect to have to defend that point when I made the post. Trust the read. I wouldn't have given it otherwise /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[hemstock]

Well most passive players won't check/raise, but he might have 92 for two pair which you also beat. THere are a lot of people that don't even know what beats what. So I say call.
I mean sometimes on a board like QQA83 a fish will raise you with 83 because he sees that he has 2 pair but can't actually read the board.

[AdamL]

I'm probably too much on the side of NOT bluffing enough...

but in 2000 hands I have NEVER bluff check-raised the river. Not ONCE.

My buddy, who plays very aggressively (I call him a tight maniac), has check-raised the river 20 times in 25,000 hands. Of those, ONE was a bluff.

You can check this out for yourselves by going into your PT, "General Info" tab, "Filters", then bottom left hand corner "Check raised river". Click ok. How many show up as bluffs?

Post your stats. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

FWIW.

[DeathDonkey]

Limp preflop the rest is standard.

-DeathDonkey

[AdamL]

Yeah, it's a factor for sure. Like all things in poker it's a question of "Often enough?" but it definitely is a factor.

[WSOP Bound]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm probably too much on the side of NOT bluffing enough...

but in 2000 hands I have NEVER bluff check-raised the river. Not ONCE.

My buddy, who plays very aggressively (I call him a tight maniac), has check-raised the river 20 times in 25,000 hands. Of those, ONE was a bluff.

You can check this out for yourselves by going into your PT, "General Info" tab, "Filters", then bottom left hand corner "Check raised river". Click ok. How many show up as bluffs?

Post your stats. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

FWIW.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the 5,000 hands that I have in PT I checkraised the river only 7 times and never with less than two pair. My aggression factor is 2.7 so I'm not overly weak, and I do use bluffs at times against the right opponents.

[MrHorace]

If the KT were suited, and table same otherwise, would you still discourage the raise? Guess w/suited, you want more callers to give you the right odds, but I'm curious.
Thx.

[AdamL]

Suited it's a raise because your hand equity is higher.

I think limping vs. raising here with KTo is fairly close given who was in front of me. I think a lot depends on who is sitting in the blinds, is that correct DeathDonkey?