missing 2 checkraises? a ftop problem.. or am i being anal?

[mike l.]

i have Ac3c in a good 15-30 game 9 handed. 2 players limp to me and i limp 2 off the button, aggressive button who plays pretty good a bit loose and a bit overaggro, plus he doesnt like me, raises. big blind and us limpers call. a bunch of us see a flop that goes:

QcTc5h. checked to me and i check, button bets, big blind calls, limper calls, i checkraise, button 3 bets, blind and limper fold, i call. heads up.

the turn is Kc. i bet out and he calls.

the river is 4c. i bet and he calls. he shows JcJh after i table my hand.

now, here's what im thinking: if i check the turn he'll bet his one card straight flush draw, and ill checkraise him and he has to call. one bet: missed.

on the river if i check again he will put me on a smaller flush he just outdrew and he'll bet for value. thanks to my history with this player and the fact he's observed me bluff checkraise scary rivers he'll definitely call me with the second nut.

so while on the surface it seems like i won a nice pot, i actually lost two big bets. f*ck.

[andyfox]

What about if he has Jd-Js?

[mike l.]

"What about if he has Jd-Js?"

just a guess but i think he might fold the river if bet into and bet the river if checked to and then fold to a checkraise. as for the turn i think he'd probably play it the same but there's a small chance he'd check behind on the turn.

why do you ask?

[PokerPrince]

Ya you're being anal. Bet the flop. Bet the turn. Bet the river. If you could see both your opponents cards then you can play it all sneaky and checkraisey. Since you can't, bet your hand for value.

PokerPrince

[Rick Nebiolo]

mike,

based on what he had in retrospect you could have checkraised twice. but heads up he could easily check behind on the turn with a variety of good hands he wants to show down for one more big bet (if he checks the turn he calls your river bet) against a tough tricky opponent such as yourself.

~ rick

[elysium]

hi mike
the only problem here mike is that you read your opponent for the Jc. well, that's correct but wrong. you should have him on QQ (unlikely), TT or KJs.

fortunately you saw the error and played it perfectly. you put him correctly on trips. no, that was wrong, but more correct than his having the Jc.

also, you realized that the board was getting scarrier for your opponent. he would be afraid to bet his trips or straight into the four flush on board. so you bet out, which was correct in this situation. no, it cost you a couple of extra bets, but in this case, getting the exrta bets in would not have been following an incorrect read, since in fact your read was correct, but it would have been following an incorrect method of hand reading. forget about those extra bets. follow your instincs within the framework of those listed in hfap and top. over-all, you will have a higher +ev, and have to do less guesswork. you read the hand correctly but you hand read incorrectly. and you still played perfectly, and you wouldn't have played perfectly if you did get those extra bets in. over-all you'll have higher ev playing this way.

[mike l.]

"over-all you'll have higher ev playing this way."

i disagree.

the problem w/ the hand was i didnt put him on anything in particular. once i made my flush i just bet and didnt give it any thought. i think that going for a checkraise on the turn wouldve worked knowing what he had, but wouldnt have worked with many other hands he couldve held that he wouldve just called a turn bet w/. so i can let that street go and not worry about it.

but the river is another thing. it makes sense for this player to do two things w/ position w/ great frequency when 4 of one suit are on the river given the preceding action:

--bet when checked to both w/ a big club (namely the J) and without.

--pay me off w/ that big club and even w/ good hands without.

in short: he wont check behind on the river and hope whatever he has holds up. of course only sometimes will he call my river checkraise, but his tendency will be towards calling. so i will make 2 bets more, and profit significantly more, than i will profit from just betting the river as i did.

another thing: his call of my bet on the turn points to him having something good already and/or something that can improve. in other words: he doesnt have red pocket 8s. so a reasonable club (a J or even the 9) is very possible. he could easily have QxJc or KxJc. so what i said about his river play seems even more likely to hold up from what i know of his play.

so my play is to go for a checkraise on the river. i dont think it's even very close. and all my reading, esp. of sklansky's writings about the river point to this being the expert play.

[bernie]

pulling off a double c/r can be tough. he may have checked behind on the turn. but, with an overaggresso it may be worth trying. remember, with a flush possible, he also has to consider the other players in the hand and that they may have it.

i think you played it well. also, if you double c/r with a flush now possible, he may fold. that would be 2 strong moves, he can almost rest assured that if his J hits the flush it wont be good.

unless he's near maniacal and will igonore the warning bells of strong moves like this

itd also be a much different post had the 9c come on the river.

b

[bernie]

this also depends on what he thinks you may have. what kinds of hands are you going to c/r the flop then bet out with when the flush is possible on the turn? many wont c/r a draw like this unless it's the nut or a str8/flush draw. even aggress players can go into calldown mode if they smell a rat in there. one thing about overaggressos is they can read hands decently.

the prime thing to look for is if he would bet in this situation. if you c/r, he may not call anyway so you may not gain anything. unless youve shown you can bluff the river like this previously.

b

[andyfox]

Because I think the check-raises only work if he has precisely the hand he had. Without the Jc, he may have checked behind.

[Lee Jones]

Looks like a fine line. If he's that aggro, doesn't like you, blah blah, then why didn't he raise his straight flush draw on the turn? (In which case you get in a three-bet right there).

My point is that you're probably operating very near some decision point, which means the particular play you make doesn't much matter.

On the river, I think a check-raise would be a very powerful play. But if you had check-raised (or three-bet) the turn, I wouldn't check the river. That seems to be about ego more than money, because not many players will fall for it a second time. If for no other reason than they don't want to be made the fool by getting check-raised twice, so they won't make marginal value bets. And betting a non-nut flush with four trump on board is marginal.

Regards, Lee

[mike l.]

"And betting a non-nut flush with four trump on board is marginal."

no it isnt. if i bet the turn and he calls and then the fourth club comes on the river and i check he would be correct in betting the second nut flush every time. to not do so against a player like me would be awful.

[D.J.]

I don't think you should have tried to check-raise the turn, go ahead and bet, then when you get the 4th club on the river, you should probably check-raise at that point b/c it looks like your small flush got counterfeited, or that you are now afraid of any flush. So, he will bet his flush and/or any other strong holding. I think you only missed 1 check-raise, definitely not 2.

-D.J.

[Lee Jones]

"And betting a non-nut flush with four trump on board is marginal."

no it isnt. if i bet the turn and he calls and then the fourth club comes on the river and i check he would be correct in betting the second nut flush every time. to not do so against a player like me
would be awful.

I was unclear. It would be marginal if you'd been check-raised or three-bet on the turn.

Regards, Lee

[mikelow]

[Roy Hobbs]

you may have missed a turn check raise, but i find it hard to believe that he calls a river check raise. But I don't know the guy.

RH

[elysium]

hi mike
since you have the nuts on the turn, and the next card can not help you, it can only hurt you, doesn't that make the decision easy? you do not have an insurmountable powerhouse here mike. not even close. you can't exclude the possibility that your opponent has trips; and you think he has the Jc. assuming that he has the Jc and x, the 9c costs you the whole pot; but any card that pairs the board can conceivably cost you the pot. it looks like about 15% of the time, a free card on the turn or river will cost you the pot.

but even when it doesn't, it may slow you down on the river. for example; if your opponent checks behind you on the turn because the board is horrifying, and it is, and yes he will likely check it along, anyway, if he checks it along and the board pairs, would you then bet into him on the river? o.k., you would. but it's a decision that is no longer so simple. you must now consider if you are willing to 3 bet if he raises you. and listen, if the pairing card is the K, Q, or T, if you bet out you won't reraise. so, in many instances, you make the exact same amount by simply betting out as you did. when you allow the free card, very, very possible here, that free card never helps you, it can only hurt you, unless it's a total rag. the times that your opponent does bet and loses the pot giving you the extra single bet on the turn, not 2 bets only 1, or folds when check-raise,....hmmmm, that i didn't consider here, the possibility that he will fold when you check-raise. yea, that probably gives you some ev, yea, that would be o.k. to do then.

o.k., so the main issue isn't whether you should check-raise on the turn, it looks like you squeek by. the main issue here are the reasons for the check-raise. if you are making this marginally +ev check-raise to win the pot, then it's o.k. but that's not the reason you want to check-raise here. you say you want to check-raise to get more money in the pot. and clearly that is wrong.

there are many situations like this, in a thousand various forms, that require a lot of consideration before acting one way or the other. in these marginal situations, when a free card is going to hurt you more often vis-a-vis pot odds when your opponent opts for infinate odds, and it would be incorrect odds wise for him to call your bet if he knew what you held, then the correct course of action is to base your play not on getting more bets in the pot, but rather winning the pot, especially when the pot is big! whether you bet out or check-raise the turn doesn't matter for all intents and purposes, unless it gives you a slightly (or of course, much) better chance of winning the pot. that's the only reason to check-raise the turn. does that marginally slight extra small possibility exist here? in other words, is there even a remote chance that your opponent will more likely fold to your check-raise rather than your bet? well, we don't know because you never figured that factor into the equation. i think that there is. i think he would possibly fold to your check-raise, but not your bet. for me, that tilts the decision in favor of the check-raise. but, that means that i'm in favor of winning the pot right now, and sacrificing those extra bets.
and i have a feeling here that if you knew that he would fold for the check-raise, you would never check-raise him! but that's the only possible reason to check-raise in this situation; not to put more money in the pot, but to get the fold. now it's worth risking the free card. so that's all i'm saying. it's the reason for the check-raise that matters here.

[mike l.]

"i think he would possibly fold to your check-raise, but not your bet"

youre wrong. i explained in my initial post that this guy has little respect for my bets and raises. i guess there are some hands, like red 88 he would play that way on the flop and then dump if checkraised on the turn, but they are few and far between given the 3 bet on the flop.

also, if you read my later posts youll see that i feel the turn checkraise is a wash, but the river checkraise is the truly expert play that i clearly missed.

lastly you keep referring to checkraising the turn to "win the pot", that doesnt really make sense. this player would not fold a set, two pair, or Jc to a turn checkraise against me there ever. so he will call with all hands that are drawing live, as well as probably the 9c (drawing dead) and some other dead hands like AhJh, AhQd, etc, etc. so there is no way a turn checkraise will keep me from being drawn out on.

also i strongly think he would 3 bet the turn w/ a set as well as AxJc, that would point towards a turn checkraise being correct...

anyone want to discuss the river checkraise? cause that's the thing that's really bothering me. please read my post "more comments" to see my take on it.

[elysium]

hi mike
i read your post and the additional comments. the river is not as important here as the turn. even if you say the turn is pretty basic.

on the river, you have the nuts. no matter what you do now, you can't lose the pot. you want to know if you should go for a check-raise. well, that's simple, no. you should not go for a check-raise because of the horrifying board, even if you bluffed on a board like this before. why risk losing a bet on the river? and sure enough, if you did check-raise this opponent successfully, meaning that he calls the check-raise, how do you not know that he would raise your bet giving you an opportunity to three bet? if all is as you say, then i assume it doesn't matter whether you bet out or check-raise the river. his occasional raise enableing you to then reraise makes up for the times he only calls or folds. also, you don't risk him checking it down. but this is the mundane area of your post. it doesn't matter what you do, you're going to win. i promise you that the ev of going for a check-raise is at most a very tiny fraction of a small bet, after all is said and done. what hfap repeatedly tells you over and over is to forget about those marginal areas of slight +ev where getting more money in the pot is concerned. for crying out loud mike, it doesn't matter. what matters is the turn, where you can make a marginally +ev type move that wins the whole big pot right now. after the turn, it doesn't matter if you check-raise the river or not. i'll take a wild guess here and say that after a year of check-raising the river in this situation rather than betting out, you might make an extra dollar. you could also be losing an extra dollar, but no more than that. you say the turn washes out. how does the turn wash out? the river washes out, not the turn. on the turn, you're doing something that may cost you the whole pot. you're contemplating check-raising the turn. if this opponent has an inside draw here, and he doesn't so a check-raise is doable, but if he did and you don't consider that other players out there might not be able to see this so easily, and might go for the check-raise because mike said to get more money in the pot, and it gets checked behind, well, that's the whole pot. you have to stress how likely this opponents bet will be and that there is some expectation of getting the fold. and no, if there is no chance that your opponent will fold, then clearly you must bet to stop the free card when that card can only hurt not help you. you say there was no chance of the fold, so then do not check-raise for marginal reasons when it only means getting more bets in the pot. that is what washes out. the extra bets you get in the pot under marginal areas completely and totally do not matter. but losing a pot because you let the free card in does matter. that's what will hurt you, not the missed bets. the missed bets in marginal regions do not matter. they amount to pennies. the times that you bet and get 3 bet make up for the times you bet and get folded on. and so forth. but, let an inside free card get in there when a bet would pick up the whole pot, and a couple days work goes down the drain. furthermore, it's totally fool-hardy. it totally is 100% avoidable. you simply bet. now if he calls, great...let him take one off for his ins. draw on the expensive round. it's well worth it. you want that every single time. or let him fold, you can't mind that a whole lot. but you never give him the chance for infinite odds. you won't win every time here even when he bets and you check-raise. he could have the nuts for crying out loud. not only didn't you have the absolute nuts, but you only had the nut flush. it's strong, but oh boy i sure wish everyone of mine always won. if every nut flush always won for me mike, i'd be totally unbeatable. no one could beat me. at least not when i held the nut flush. my thinking, what the win rate seems like to me is something like 75%. of course it's better than that, i think, i'm not sure though. but i kid you not, they more than i care to think about do sometimes lose.

so, never do something that risks the whole pot. if you were betting the turn to stop the free card, say so. that's great. oh, by the way, a check-raise also may have gotten the fold in this particular situation. but only in this situation, and i'd say 90% of the time, you'd bet out to stop the free card. here, either way with it tilting toward a check-raise on the turn because you had everything you needed. but never interject the idea of check-raising in marginal situations in a big pot to get more bets in the pot. you must never do that or think like that. there must be some reason toward winning the big pot. and if it could cost you the pot, never ever check-raise ever. as for the river, after you were certain of victory, whether you check-raise this particular opponent or not doesn't matter at all. 90% of the time you won't have these conditions, and then it could matter so you bet out. but that's the least important issue. it's more important that the newbies don't go check-raising for the wrong reason.

[mike l.]

"it doesn't matter what you do, you're going to win!"

elysium! youre so wrong! the difference between winning a $330 pot vs winning a $360 pot IS important! very important!

"my thinking, what the win rate seems like to me is something like 75%. of course it's better than that, i think, i'm not sure though."

youre saying that you think a made nut flush heads up holds up only around 75% of the time?? are you insane??

"so, never do something that risks the whole pot."

it's official: you are insane.

"it's more important that the newbies don't go check-raising for the wrong reason."

thanks ill keep that in mind next time i come across some newbies.

[mike l.]

did you even read the post you replied to? in it i clearly explained that my opponent would not fold two pair or better or the Jc to a turn checkraise so he would never get a free card to a hand he would fold to a bet! so betting the turn will NOT EVER save the pot for me and keep me from being drawn out on if that's what will happen on the river.

the confusion seems to be that you dont understand the value in risking letting a 4-outer or 1-outer or whatever get there on the river in exchange for the chance of making more money from a suspicious opponent. that's the proper equation for a turn checkraise attempt in the case i presented.

[elysium]

hi mike
whew, you really italicized me off but good. there are so many out of context things, but anyway,i said that under this set of circumstances and opponent, a check-raise on the turn was o.k.; no problem there mike. the issue of course is that the pot is already very large. if it were not so large, go ahead and try to check-raise solely for getting additional money in the pot. here the pot is already very large, so you must consider the fact that your opponent may very well check-behind you. o.k., you did that and know (somehow) for a fact that he will bet, and i agree with you, however this is a very rare situation, and while it may be o.k. here, in the 99 other situations out of 100, you must have some expectation of getting a fold when the pot is large and betting won't get the fold, before check-raising. even if that opponent is drawing thinly. that once the pot is large not only winning the pot becomes the priority, but also not losing the pot by a thin draw becomes a priority; and that if betting out won't rid you of the thin draw and check-raising may, then and only then should you consider a check-raise, even if mike, even if the thin draw is not getting proper odds to draw. if he's only got a 2% chance of drawing but a check-raise will add 8 to 10 % to an already large pot if everything goes perfect, then you should not check-raise. you should clearly not check-raise. you brought up my guesstimate of how often the nut flush holds up? i said it feels like 75% of the time, but it may be more than that. i am making the point that there are cards out there that can cause you catastrophic damage, and while taking into consideration everything you said about the opponent, you said nothing that gives me or anyone for that matter reason to believe that this opponent can not have Jc as you say, top two pair as you say, or a set, as you cleverly do not say. and if for some reason he can not possibly have a well hidden set, as most sets are, you leave room for a possible holding of top two pair; we weren't completely squeezed out to reducing the possible holding to exactly Jc. because you are fair spirited, he may also kindly be holding top two pair. if this holding is even remotely possible as you suggest, while he couldn't possibly have a set because you say he can't, then you must not check-raise unless that check-raise will pick up the pot, set or no set, because top two pair here sure loves the free one. and i'm going against the grain of your logic here mike, so i'm a little handi-capped, but i will say this; you might be right about the impossibility of his holding a set, but nothing will ever convince me that anyone who has even a slight hint about the prospects of a four flush board will bet unless he has a reasonably high flush card, and if he has top two pair, he doesn't have a flush card of any kind, but he sure could use a free card. if he has a set, he doesn't have a flush card, but would like a free one. and if he has the almighty powerful Jc, he still may want a free card. he may fear being check-raised because he knows that is something that you do.

and you say check-raising the river after you have a lock will make you money? well, you don't have a lock. there is still one hand that beats you, but even with a lock, it washes out. the river check-raise with a lock still washes out. you make maybe a dollar more at the end of the year. the important part of your post has nothing to do with a meaningless check-raise. it has to do with the turn. you must bet the turn unless your check-raise has some expectation of getting the fold. and yes, i'd like to see the numbers on how often the nut flush holds up. it feels like 75% of the time. whatever it is, it ain't no 100%

[Ulysses]

it's official: you are insane.

Blasphemer.

[DanS]

Does this mean the Cult of Elysium has dwindled to one?

Dan

[bernie]

"i'd like to see the numbers on how often the nut flush holds up. it feels like 75% of the time. whatever it is, it ain't no 100%"

this isnt that hard to figure out. especially since it's HU. the best draw would be a set. which will complete on the river, from the turn, about 21% of the time. meaning a nut flush in this situation will hold up about 79%.

b

[mike l.]

"or a set, as you cleverly do not say."

i repeatedly said he might have a set and that he would never take a free card on the turn w/ it. he would bet it and possibly 3 bet if i checkraised knowing that i would probably need the nut flush to 4 bet because i might fear a bigger flush.

"because top two pair here sure loves the free one."

again, youre not paying attention. this player would not check top two pair when checked to on the turn. he would bet and call a checkraise.

i liked it better when your posts made absolutely no sense, when they were completely absurdist and nonsensical, because now that youre making your points more clearly the things youre saying are so retarded, illogical, and ignorant of the original poster's questions and facts, that it's just about unbearable. please dont reply.

[mike l.]

this is not the elysium who said rope the darn thing and (lol) and all that great stuff. he's still no hemingway, but this guy is making points now. it's taking him 1000+ words per post to do it and the points he's making are horrid ("it sure feels like 75%") and a complete waste of time. time to go back to ignoring him i guess until i start seeing replies to him with subjects like "(lol) back in classic form!" and "is this guy dynasty in disguise?"

[mike l.]

"this isnt that hard to figure out. especially since it's HU. the best draw would be a set. which will complete on the river, from the turn, about 21% of the time. meaning a nut flush in this situation will hold up about 79%."

and then compute in the times opponent has two pair, has a one outer w/ Jc, and when he's drawing dead and the nut flush is holding up over 90%.

[punkass]

Im going to comment on your river play, since that is what you have specifically asked. I have also not read elysium's rants, so if by pure coincidence I say something he has said, please shoot me.

It seems you are basing your "should've checkraised the river" play after you saw his cards. After you bet out on the flop, and, after much discussion, bet out on the turn, you have to bet out on the river. Yes, in this instance, the Jc would have bet into you had you checked. But only if you KNOW he has the Jc.

Any other holding he may have - two pair, sets, lower flushes, straights, top pair - will just check behind you. I would bet the river, as you did, and take the 1bb, and not risk it going for a check raise.

The much better place to check raise would've been the turn, but I still wouldn't do it here, because, in my past experience, when a flush and a straight both come out, you should almost always bet the flush. The straight, if it got there, will almost raise, and you will be paid off.

So all in all, I would've played it the way you played it, not the way you wanted to play it. Seems backwards to me, but whatever.

john

[mike l.]

please read my post "more comments" as that specifically states why i think a river checkraise was the correct play and it's not close. the fact this player would probably bet the river w/ many non-club hands when checked to (in hopes of representing Ac when shown weakness and folding a better hand or getting called by a worse one) and even pay off my checkraise w/ some of those better hands (sets, top two, straights--however unlikely some are given the turn action) makes it clearly the right play.

[Ulysses]

Reading your posts, I get a picture of an overaggressive opponent who like to play back at you and thinks you're full of crap. In which case, going for a river checkraise is correct for all the reasons you've stated.

However, I don't buy your assessment of this guy. I have opponents like that, and they sure as hell will pop me on the river if it's heads-up and they have the second nut.

Yes, this guy would have bet and called your river checkraise w/ what he actually had. However, given the range of other hands he might have had, I'm not sure you were correct that he would auto-bet (and often call your checkraise) with many/most of them.

Given the fact that he just flat-called w/ the second nut, I think he may well have checked behind w/ a number of possible hands.

[mike l.]

good logic ulysses using the info you were given, rather than some you made up along the way. you are a top notch poster, one of very few.

[Ulysses]

i find it hard to believe that he calls a river check raise

Roy,

I've never played with mike, but if I were to play with him, just based on his posts here, I'll call a river check raise by him in this scenario holding the second nuts (and many other flushes) 150% of the time. And it sounds like his opponent is someone who has played w/ him.

Having said that, in case I do end up playing with him, I'd like mike to know that actually I'll call, 3-bet, and fold to this river check raise some variable amount of times.

[Ulysses]

Elysium,

I only read about three lines from your posts in this thread. With posts this long, I think you're actually serious. In which case, I'd suggest you shorten your responses considerably if you actually want anyone to read them. Anyway, here was one of the lines I read:

on the river, you have the nuts.

The nuts in this case would be 9cJc for the straight flush. If you're going to write 6000 words on a post, you should at least attempt to get the basics right.

[DanS]

Actually, Ulysses, the nuts would be AcJc for the royal. /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif /forums/images/icons/grin.gif For example, if the final board is 87432r, 65 is the nuts even if, say, all four of the sixes are accounted for in non-straight hands.

Just being a nitpickining ass,
Dan /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif

[theoone]

pre-flop

Its hard to say how to procced with this hand based on the information that you have given. Is this the type of player that raises on the button just to take out the blinds with any two decent cards.

flop. Again not enough information. does this player alway bet into 3 players when checked after raising. does he always bet after raising pre-flop. does he sometimes raise pre-flop on the button pre-flop just to check on the flop to see the fourth card for "free".

a. if he always bets then I understand the check if not u have a draw or A high.
B. if he doesn't always bet and is a decent player buy checkraising the flop you give away youre hand after 2 players call and loose any hope of bluffing the pot. having the 2 drop isn't neccearly bad but it depands on the player but loose the equity in the draw.

turn again with the board QcTc5h Kc I would check simply on the fact that the player has to eaither have nothing or hit this board and has to protect his hand from another club. Plus buy 3 betting the flop he has bluff equity in representing a flush to you since you didn't 3 bet. One on one he also has a straith draw. So check-raising the turn on this particular hand seems to be the right play but it always depands like roy cooke sais.

On the river I understand the bet and 70 percent of the time I will make the bet myself but it depands.

again with these type of hands its hard to give an opinion simply beacuse We don't understand the type of playing style he has or youre history with him.

[elysium]

hi ulysses
oh for crying out loud ulysses, i think i said that mike doesn't have the absolute nuts, but in fairness i'm granting that his opponent doesn't have a straight flush.

[elysium]

hi all
well i stuck out on this one completly. all i said was that the river doesn't matter. he can do what he wants and over time that play washes out, unless he check-folds. now, do not check-fold. i know i'm pushing your tolerance on the fourth line here, but continue reading. do not check-fold on the river.

the important area in this post is the action on the turn. 90% of the time, bet out. here you have that 10% of the time conditions necessary to successfully check-raise and possibly get the fold. any time that a bet will get the fold as often as a check-raise, bet. do not let getting more money into the already big pot dictate what you do. all that matters now is winning the pot.

did i notice that the opponent called on the turn? well..., anyway everyone, in spite of the fact that this opponent's turn action has not demonstrated that he will bet if mike checks on the river, you can figure this opponent to bet and call the check-raise with equal ev vis-a-vis the number of times he checks it down or reraises with a stronger hand. it's about equal ev there. this is what is upsetting mike. he thinks he lost ev by betting out with the winner on the river. to put his mind at rest, why doesn't someone tell him for crying out loud that it doesn't matter what he does on the fritzen river. oh, he could check-fold or the opponent could have a straight flush, but i suppose that the number of times mike would check-fold on the river here are equal to the number of times he will be reraised with a straight flush. but you know what, don't delve into this area looking for ways to disprove what i'm saying. ulysses has argued back that my post was too long, mike italitized me, but so far gentlemen, no one has said it matters whatsoever whether mike check-raises the river or bets out. the first rational argument made supporting either a check-raise or a bet out, i'll listen to wholeheartedly. but hey kids, so far no one has shown that it matters.

now i've had enough of this. anymore shenanigans here and i'll go mandatory with the dang thing. case closed.

[elysium]

hi mike
hey mike, you know what, you say over and over that this opponent will bet the turn with top two. o.k., i agree, but why don't you have the courtesy to at least complete what it is you're saying. here, let me say it correctly for you.

mike: " my opponent will bet top two pair on the turn after i check to him, even though top two pair here necessarily means that he does not have the suit to the four suited board. and the board is also very straightish indeed." on the turn? "yes. on the turn no less." my, now that's some story!

[elysium]

hi mike
and you're probably right! here is something that you are likely right about. what did i say, i said it felt like 75% of the time? whew boy was i ever wrong mike, and wow how right, really really right you are. and you there with the 79%, put your sign down fella. you're wrong! mike says. it's the big 'nine-oh' from now on.

mike , you have given us all ten good reasons not to check-raise the turn with the nut flush. thank-you my friend.

[Ulysses]

Yes, Dan, of course you are correct that AcJc is the nuts. But in the context of considering mike's options in this hand, only a complete, absolute, idiotic moron would even mention AcJc when mike himself holds Ac.

I can't wait to completely demolish you at whatever game you sit in at LC on Monday.

Until then.... /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Ulysses]

do not check-fold on the river.

Ah, here's the sage Elysium advice I was missing. I definitely agree here! Good advice.

no one has said it matters whatsoever whether mike check-raises the river or bets out. the first rational argument made supporting either a check-raise or a bet out, i'll listen to wholeheartedly. but hey kids, so far no one has shown that it matters.

He should bet for the reason I stated in my post above.

now i've had enough of this. anymore shenanigans here and i'll go mandatory with the dang thing. case closed.

The King is back, the King is back!

[DanS]

I'll be in the 50cent/$1 peddling the nuts with haakee!!!

Dan

P.S. Sorry to disappoint, but I probably won't be playing on Monday.

[mike l.]

" means that he does not have the suit to the four suited board."

i thought i read this in a previous post and i just couldnt believe it. i think youve misread the board! here let me clarify: there are 2 clubs on the flop, and then a 3rd on the turn (not 4 clubs on the turn, just 3), and then the 4th club on the river.

[elysium]

hi mike
got me again. straightish 3 suited board. now can i please get some sleep! check-raise a 90%'er on a 3 suited straightish board.....for cying out loud!