River play (crossposted)

[Entity]

Crossposted with a micro thread. Don't read there before reading here if you can help it -- the threads are different. Please vote before responding (so as to not read before voting), but respond with your reasoning.

UTG+1 is an ok, straightforward, not tricky player. He doesn't raise garbage-ish hands preflop. He's fairly passive postflop.

Party Poker 15-30 (8-handed)
converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is Button with A/images/graemlins/club.gif, K/images/graemlins/spade.gif.
<font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, <font color="#CC3333">UTG+1 raises</font>, <font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero 3-bets</font>, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, UTG+1 calls.

Flop: (7.66 SB) T/images/graemlins/club.gif, 4/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, T/images/graemlins/spade.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
UTG+1 checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, UTG+1 calls.

Turn: (4.83 BB) 3/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
UTG+1 checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, UTG+1 calls.

River: (6.83 BB) 7/images/graemlins/club.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
UTG+1 checks, Hero...

[Paxosmotic]

I think we've got a small bit of fold equity against all pocket pairs and AK, and can expect to get called quite a few times with AQ or AJ, so this is a bet.

[lil']

You can bet for value here.

(I disagree that a better hand is folding here, though. You might get another A-K to fold, but a better hand didn't come this far to fold the river for one bet.)

I think that we can reduce the likelihood that a bunch of pair hands are around here. AA, KK, and to a lesser degree QQ would have made a bit more noise here. TT seems outs. 99 and 88 might not have raised in the first place here.

By reducing the percentage of villain's range taken up by pairs in such a fashion, we realize that AK is going to take up a huge percentage of villain's range.

The value of folding another AK here makes the river bet valuable in my opinion, particularly against a passive opponent who would not call it down.

[cold_cash]

Bet so that you might avoid the chop.

Also, I don't know about you but I think many players will call the flop and turn hoping you're betting overcards, but when you bet the river they think, "Well, he probably wouldn't bet all 3 streets w/ overcards, so he must really have it."

Now, I have my doubts that you can get this guy to lay down a hand like 99 (unlikely), or JJ (never), but when you add in the possiblity that he folds another AK or calls w/ AQ I think it's a bet.

[Argus]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
I think we've got a small bit of fold equity against all pocket pairs and AK, and can expect to get called quite a few times with AQ or AJ, so this is a bet.

[/ QUOTE ]
How can you hope that the better hands in villain's range will fold but the worse hands will call? I disagree with those that voted to bet. You have a hand with some showdown value, but not enough that you are a favourite when called. Most good players would dump AQ or AJ on the turn, knowing they are dogs to your 3-betting range in this mid-sized pot. I expect villain to showdown a pocket pair smaller than queens and call your river bet every time.

[meep_42]

Check.

PPs aren't folding here, ever. The only hand that folds that you want to fold is another AK. You get a call from AQ and maybe AJ.

Based on the overcard possibilities alone, it's a very close bet, but when you figure PPs that call I don't think this is a good value bet.

-d

[cold_cash]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think we've got a small bit of fold equity against all pocket pairs and AK, and can expect to get called quite a few times with AQ or AJ, so this is a bet.

[/ QUOTE ]
How can you hope that the better hands in villain's range will fold but the worse hands will call? I disagree with those that voted to bet. You have a hand with some showdown value, but not enough that you are a favourite when called. Most good players would dump AQ or AJ on the turn, knowing they are dogs to your 3-betting range in this mid-sized pot. I expect villain to showdown a pocket pair smaller than queens and call your river bet every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with you that folding a better hand is a very slim possibility, but I think you underestimate both how often this guy will have and fold AK, and how often he'll have and call w/ AQ. (Though I think the chances of the former are greater than the chances of the latter.)

[baronzeus]

After calling the turn, AK isnt folding, especially if he is passive postflop. Neither is any pocket pair.

Your best bet is getting value from AQ-AJ. AQ-AJ isn't folding after calling the turn either. It's certainly not an easy bet though, since you may have beaten his pocket pair into submission with your preflop 3bet, especially when you add in the fact that he is passive.

[bugstud]

at higher limits you can valuebet this because a pair would have given more action

I think I still bet here and expect to see AQ

[jskills]

[ QUOTE ]
Check.

PPs aren't folding here, ever. The only hand that folds that you want to fold is another AK. You get a call from AQ and maybe AJ.

Based on the overcard possibilities alone, it's a very close bet, but when you figure PPs that call I don't think this is a good value bet.

-d

[/ QUOTE ]

Word.

[krimson]

I chose check. I think the only hand we're folding that we want to fold is AK. We might get a call from AQ and AJ, but I think we're also getting called down by hands like 99, 88, 77 or even a passively played JJ (based on your read) too often for it to be +ev to bet.

[SmileyEH]

I bet here. Even a passive player is going to throw a raise in with a hand like 99 here, especially by 15/30 standards.

-SmileyEH

[hobbsmann]

Since this guy is fairly passive postflop there is a chance he doesn't put in raise with 88/99 and possibly JJ.

If we put his range as 88,99,JJ and AJ-AK we are

winning 47% of the time
losing 35% of the time
chopping 18% of the time.

So the river question then comes down to how likely it is that he calls the river with each hand. I'd lean towards checking the river here because the benifit of folding another AK (and AJ-AQ) doesn't outweigh the times he calls with 88/99/JJ.

Tweaking his hand range slightly can turn this into a profitable call though. If for example he wouldn't play JJ this passively then you are winning 53% of the time on the river.

I still see this as a fairly marginal river bet, but would be more in favor of it if we could rule out 88 from his range.

[Hoi Polloi]

Check: The only value of a bet is getting AK to fold. You give another bet to all the hands you lose to and you don't make enough on calls from hands you beat to make up difference IMO.

[Derek in NYC]

I dont know 15/30 players, but this is a check if you believe Bob Ciaffone &amp; Jim Brier. The only person calling a river bet has a pair, and no pair is folding.

[Argus]

To those hoping to fold AK:
9 combos of AK
6 combos JJ
6 combos 99
6 combos 88

For the EV of a bet to be 0 (assuming we can always safely fold to a check/raise) solve for x in:
x/27 * 3.4 + 18/27 * (-1) = 0.
x=5.3.
Villain has to fold AK 5.3/9 times, or 59% of the time. I'm not sure whether it happens that often. This villain must have an understanding of pot odds, and knew they weren't there if he had to hit to win, so you are depending on his thinking that you won't bet AK again on the river.

I stand by my check, but given that it doesn't take much to turn this into a bet (remove 88 from the range, or believe that villain will often fold AK) I agree that it is close. If villain's range extends to include raising 77 UTG+1 then you have to check, unless you think that AQ will often call you.

[callmedonnie]

I said bet. I know OP said he was fairly passive, but it also said he was decent player. I think given the action he obviously doesn't have a ten or an overpair. The only holdings that come to mind are KQ, AK, weaker Aces, and pocket eights and nines. This might be the classic time for a WSD rate.

[Luv2DriveTT]

I want to value bet that river so badly.....

but I don't.

TT /images/graemlins/club.gif

[SmileyEH]

A player that raises 99 UTG will put a raise in on this board. The only hand that makes sense which we are behind is JJ, which will obviously call. The pot is big, getting AK to fold is a coup and there is some value in AQ calling.

-SmileyEH

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
To those hoping to fold AK:
9 combos of AK
6 combos JJ
6 combos 99
6 combos 88

For the EV of a bet to be 0 (assuming we can always safely fold to a check/raise) solve for x in:
x/27 * 3.4 + 18/27 * (-1) = 0.
x=5.3.
Villain has to fold AK 5.3/9 times, or 59% of the time. I'm not sure whether it happens that often. This villain must have an understanding of pot odds, and knew they weren't there if he had to hit to win, so you are depending on his thinking that you won't bet AK again on the river.

I stand by my check, but given that it doesn't take much to turn this into a bet (remove 88 from the range, or believe that villain will often fold AK) I agree that it is close. If villain's range extends to include raising 77 UTG+1 then you have to check, unless you think that AQ will often call you.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post is pretty sweet.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To those hoping to fold AK:
9 combos of AK
6 combos JJ
6 combos 99
6 combos 88

For the EV of a bet to be 0 (assuming we can always safely fold to a check/raise) solve for x in:
x/27 * 3.4 + 18/27 * (-1) = 0.
x=5.3.
Villain has to fold AK 5.3/9 times, or 59% of the time. I'm not sure whether it happens that often. This villain must have an understanding of pot odds, and knew they weren't there if he had to hit to win, so you are depending on his thinking that you won't bet AK again on the river.

I stand by my check, but given that it doesn't take much to turn this into a bet (remove 88 from the range, or believe that villain will often fold AK) I agree that it is close. If villain's range extends to include raising 77 UTG+1 then you have to check, unless you think that AQ will often call you.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post is pretty sweet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but I think it has several fundamental errors.

Rob

[SmileyEH]

This post assumes villian plays all those hands the same way, which is definitely not the case.

-SmileyEH

[thejameser]

check is the easy answer. but i think with a player like this holdings could be narrowed down to 99 or AJ-AK. a straightforward guy would cap with a big PP right? if i knew his WTSD% it may sway me to bet. regardless i may like bet anyway.

[callmedonnie]

Doesn't the post also rule out hands like KQ, AJ, AQ as possibilities?

It is still sweet.

[B Dids]

Given the texture of this board, I think we hear from hands beating us often enough that this is a value bet with some FE vs a chop. Basically what everybody else has said.

[sfer]

How is check winning?

[Argus]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
Doesn't the post also rule out hands like KQ, AJ, AQ as possibilities?

It is still sweet.

[/ QUOTE ]
I left those out because of OP's description that villain
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
is an ok, straightforward, not tricky player. He doesn't raise garbage-ish hands preflop. He's fairly passive postflop.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't expect a player with that description to call with those hands. I'd be very interested in a calculation similar to mine with different assumptions that lead to a bet being clearly correct.

Although SmileyEh says that there is danger in assuming the Villain plays his pair hands this way, he could be scared of the 3-bet and just be check/calling the whole way. He is described as passive. The more pairs you can eliminate from villains range the more attractive a bet is. I just happen to think that you can't eliminate enough (or get called by worse hands enough) that a bet is profitable.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't the post also rule out hands like KQ, AJ, AQ as possibilities?

It is still sweet.

[/ QUOTE ]
I left those out because of OP's description that villain
[ QUOTE ]
is an ok, straightforward, not tricky player. He doesn't raise garbage-ish hands preflop. He's fairly passive postflop.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't expect a player with that description to call with those hands. I'd be very interested in a calculation similar to mine with different assumptions that lead to a bet being clearly correct.

Although SmileyEh says that there is danger in assuming the Villain plays his pair hands this way, he could be scared of the 3-bet and just be check/calling the whole way. He is described as passive. The more pairs you can eliminate from villains range the more attractive a bet is. I just happen to think that you can't eliminate enough (or get called by worse hands enough) that a bet is profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

The sort of player who you can't imagine folding AK 59% of the time on this river isn't folding AQ and AJ 100% of the time. That's very important.

Rob

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
How is check winning?

[/ QUOTE ]

ppl are confused /images/graemlins/wink.gif they think we have A4 /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[SmileyEH]

I posted a hand nearly identical to this a few months ago. The thread quickly got out of hand. Here it is for posterity's sake.

linky (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&amp;Board=smallholdem&amp;Number=2650580 &amp;Forum=f3&amp;Words=timing&amp;Searchpage=0&amp;Limit=25&amp;Main= 2650580&amp;Search=true&amp;where=sub&amp;Name=11462&amp;daterange =1&amp;newerval=3&amp;newertype=m&amp;olderval=&amp;oldertype=&amp;bod yprev=#Post2650580)

-SmileyEH

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
How is check winning?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know, Dave; I just don't know.

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
How is check winning?

[/ QUOTE ]

I should go find the hands where I valuebet with AQ and ship it

Party Poker (5 handed) converter (http://www.selachian.com/tools/bisonconverter/hhconverter.cgi)

Preflop: Hero is BB with Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif, A/images/graemlins/spade.gif.
2 folds, button opens, I call

Flop: 4/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, J/images/graemlins/club.gif, 2/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero check calls

Turn: 7/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, Button checks.

River: 9/images/graemlins/heart.gif <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
bet, call

Final Pot: 5.5BB

button has KTo

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]

I should go find the hands where I valuebet with AQ and ship it

[/ QUOTE ]

I did that last week.

[callmedonnie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't the post also rule out hands like KQ, AJ, AQ as possibilities?

It is still sweet.

[/ QUOTE ]
I left those out because of OP's description that villain
[ QUOTE ]
is an ok, straightforward, not tricky player. He doesn't raise garbage-ish hands preflop. He's fairly passive postflop.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't expect a player with that description to call with those hands. I'd be very interested in a calculation similar to mine with different assumptions that lead to a bet being clearly correct.

Although SmileyEh says that there is danger in assuming the Villain plays his pair hands this way, he could be scared of the 3-bet and just be check/calling the whole way. He is described as passive. The more pairs you can eliminate from villains range the more attractive a bet is. I just happen to think that you can't eliminate enough (or get called by worse hands enough) that a bet is profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

The sort of player who you can't imagine folding AK 59% of the time on this river isn't folding AQ and AJ 100% of the time. That's very important.

Rob

[/ QUOTE ]

yea, I think so too. I would also be interested in a calculation, but I'm an idiot. I need to learn some of this math stuff. Odds are where my math ends.

[27offsooot]

(without viewing the other posts) This seems like an easy river bet for value and to potentially win half the pot. If ever there were a flop to get played back at with 88-JJ, it's this one.

[newhizzle]

i check, i dont think i better hand is folding much here, you might get called by AQ, but i still check, usually when i have AK, i try to get it to showdown and hope its good

[lerxst337]

I apologize in advance, this may be long as it is filled with math, which I am a little at doing. Btw, i say bet, but didn't originally think so.

Unlike the previous equation, this one does not assume incidence of hands, and insteads seeks to find the incidence of them. We fold to a c/r. The equation to determine whether or not we should bet is...

x(-1) + y(+3.4) + z(+1) + P(+6.8) = 0

Where x are pocket pairs that played this far--24 combinations, maybe discounted because we can rule them out slightly because they probably would have c/r along the way.

y is AK FOLDING--not simply him holding it.

z is AQ, AJ, KQs (any others?) calling us.

P is a pocket pair FOLDING (I say there is NO chance of this, but for the sake of completeness, it should go there.)

Right now, lets disregard z and P. A pocket pair must call about 3.4 times more than we fold an AK for it to be -EV. Without taking into account the play, AK has 9 combos (27%), QQ-88 have 24 (73%) (no tens of course). I GUESS that we can devalue the pairs by about 1/3, or incidence of 16 to 9. If you divide 16 by 3.4 to find the number of times AK must fold to make the bet profitable, you get 4.7. Assuming villian plays AK all the way to the end, he must fold just over half the time.

There are two more things to point out. First as sfer et al have pointed out, we will occasionally get called with worse hands (28 combos of AQ, AJ, and KQs). Also, I agree with the others that we may be able to devalue pocket pairs MORE than I have already (raising UTG+1 with 88, just calling all the way with QQ, not capping with QQ or JJ, etc.), so much so that I think we may see AK MORE OFTEN than pocket pairs here, unless hero is hyper aggro, and villian REALLY doesn't want to take the lead away for fear of hero folding. As said by others, the more we devalue the possibility of villian holding a pair, the more this play is profitable.

It is close, but I think it is clearly a bet. The idea that a worse hand calling, and an equal one folding are not at odds, since the incidence of AK folding does not have to be that great to be +EV.

"Sigh!!!" Hopefully the math is right. If anyone has any corrections, please submit them..., I'm just learning!

[Shillx]

[ QUOTE ]
Check.

PPs aren't folding here, ever. The only hand that folds that you want to fold is another AK. You get a call from AQ and maybe AJ.

Based on the overcard possibilities alone, it's a very close bet, but when you figure PPs that call I don't think this is a good value bet.

-d

[/ QUOTE ]

Meep,

When you look at this hand, you have to figure out how often the villian will have a pocket pair here. If you or I were the villian, there would be a good chance that we would play something like 99 or even JJ this way. Let Entity throw away his money by betting 6 outs all the way down (we might or might not bet the river). A more typical player would almost always toss either a bet or raise in somewhere (before the river) with a pocket pair. When he check/calls the 1st two streets, the probability of him having a PP goes way down. Not only that, but this is the type of player (if he has a pair) who might fold that same pocket to a river bet. I would highly consider playing something like 99 this way if I knew Rob and he didn't really know me. If we both knew each other then I would never check/fold on the end but it is something to consider. If anything, we might have a bet for value here if we can peg him on AK and AQ. Anytime that the other AK folds is just a bonus for us.

Brad

[Bluffoon]

I voted bet. UTG is not raising PF with any pair less than tens and with any high pocket pair we would have heard from him by now passive or not. He has two big cards. Bet to fold out AK.

[chief444]

I think you're good here almost always. So I put bet. I'm not sure if AK is ever folding on this board. I'm not sure how often AQ/AJ pay off. But I am pretty sure you have the best hand so if either of those things happen it's worth the bet. You did say the opponent is fairly passive postflop...and that makes it closer. But I doubt if even a fairly passive opponent going check/call the entire way with a better hand on this board.

[chief444]

[ QUOTE ]
A player that raises 99 UTG will put a raise in on this board.

[/ QUOTE ]
Couldn't agree more.

[neuroman]

Check. As said by others, the probability of him have a middle pocket pair seems good, and he's certainly calling you down with that. I'm not sure why lots of people assume he might call with AQ, AJ, but fold an AK. He sounds like the kind of player that will call down with AK in this spot.

If I bet here and get called, I expect to see AK or pockets and either split or lose the pot.

[jason_t]

Bob Ciaffone would pussy out and check behind here; I would utility/value bet here.

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
Bob Ciaffone would pussy out and check behind here; I would utility/value bet here.

[/ QUOTE ]

what's a utility bet?

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bob Ciaffone would pussy out and check behind here; I would utility/value bet here.

[/ QUOTE ]

what's a utility bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

A bet that isn't purely for value or purely a bluff, but somewhere in between.

Rob

[gaming_mouse]

[ QUOTE ]
A more typical player would almost always toss either a bet or raise in somewhere (before the river) with a pocket pair. When he check/calls the 1st two streets, the probability of him having a PP goes way down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. Passive players are frightened of 3-bets. He could easily have 88-99 here but fear an overpair. Passive players also like to call down in such situations.

Given the description, though, I don't think he'd have raised a lower PP. Which means he has either exactly 88,99 or else AK, AQ, mabye AJs. I don't see him playing a big pair this way, though it's possible.

So 12 combos beat us, we beat 20, and the rest are chops (unless he folds AK, which is possible and adds alot of value to a bet).

So we do have a bet, assuming he pays off AQ, AJs. I am not convinced he would based on the description, so I think it's close, but a bet wins.

[DocMartin]

I voted check figuring I dont get stronger hands to fold by betting and I dont get called by hands that I beat.

I may have taken the passive read too far. The passive player that is afraid of KK and AA after a 3-bet. In my mind 99,JJ,QQ and AK all call, AQ (maybe AJs) probably dont.

Good thread, I could be convinced that this is a slim value bet.

[JoshuaD]

I chose bet, but it really depends on how you define "fairly passive postflop".

I think a good deal of the time he's got AK here, which he might fold. Similarly, he might call with AQ.

I like it more and more the less likely he is to have a PP here.

[AdamL]

I checked because I didn't think he was folding a pp for one more bet. I guess it would be nice if you could get him to fold another AK...

[Entity]

The big reason I posted this was because I don't think a lot of people think of the value of folding a hand like AK here. Additionally, this sort of player is often -- but not always -- going to be the candidate to pay off any decent ace, which usually will include AQ and sometimes (but less often) AJ. The biggest thing to note, though, is that due to the pot size, he really doesn't have to fold AK very often for it to be a profitable bet.

Anyone assuming he calls with AK 80% of the time but folds AQ and AJ anything close to a high % of the time is pretty far off as well, from my observations and general play when it comes to value/utilitybetting Ace-high.

So let's look at this with conservative estimates. Let's say he has pocket pairs here 14 ways. Something like 4 for JJ (usually JJ finds a bet here somewhere), 4 for 88 (usually this sort of player doesn't raise 88 in EP), and 6 for 99. Just a guess. Tweak as necessary.

So our bet loses 1BB against each of those hands. I think he calls pretty much 100% of the time with a pair on this board. So we lose 14BB there.

Now we come to AK. How often does he fold AK? Well, a lot of people are questioning how often a player like this will call the turn incorrectly and manage to find a fold on the river with AK. They assume never, but that's off by a bit. The answer isn't never but it certainly isn't 100% of the time. I think he probably makes a calldown with AK here about 65% of the time. So that means he folds a chop 35% of the time, which is worth 10.71 bets to us.

Now we have to ask about AQ and AJ. Well, the answer should be somewhat clear that the sort of player that only folds AK on this river 65% of the time isn't folding AQ and AJ nearly 100% of the time. Again, I'm basing this on observation based on how often I'm called with various Ace-high hands on the river here. But I think if he's calling with AK 65% of the time, he's probably calling with AQ about 40% of the time, and AJ an additional 15% of the time. So that's 4.8BB from AQ and 1.8BB from AJ.

I actually think all of these estimates are fairly conservative. But I want to be non-controversial with the numbers here to illustrate a point. We're earning 10.71+4.8+1.8 bets here in a conservative model and losing 14BB, which means a net EV of betting of 3.31 bets. That's a pretty big deal.

Anyway, just wanted to chime in on this since I posted it. In the actual hand (I did not play this hand), shant held 99 and the river was the 7/images/graemlins/diamond.gif. He bet and was called by AQ.

I honestly think that a lot of the gut reactions to check here are probably from the fact that we are trained from the beginnings of our limit play not to bet Ace-high on the river because worse hands won't call, but the folding a chop aspect that many people seemed to overlook is so important here that it's very +EV to find a bet. Yes, sometimes we'll lose to 99 and feel dumb, but if you had to repeat this scenario a million times, I'm quite certain you'd earn a lot more by betting than you would by checking.

Rob

[Stork]

Even if he's fairly passive postflop, you would've heard from AA-JJ by now. This is a super easy bet.

[Solid_p]

It depends on how likely utg+1 is to call down with A-high. I voted bet though. Youre hand is most likely the best here. The only better hands I could put him on is 99-88. He´s rather unlikely to have a ten from utg+1, and if he has it you can fold to the river checkraise against this non-tricky player. Let him call with his A-high hand.

But it would of course change to a check if utg+1 isn´t likely to call down with A-high.

[Solid_p]

Let´s crunch some numbers...

Let´s assume he has 99, 88, AK or AQ. JJ seems highly unlikely unless he´s really really
passive, and AJ/KQ will surely fold to a river bet.

99 - 6 combinations
88 - 6 combinations
AK - 9 combinations
AQ - 12 combinations

Assuming he will always call with 99-88, and how often he will call with AK and AQ,
we can calculate EV. Throwing in some numbers (maybe you guys have
better numbers to throw in?!) :

AK-call: 60% AQ-call: 10%

(1.0x6x(-1) + 1x6x(-1) + 0.4x9x3.4 + 0.1x12x1 ) / 33 = +0.04 bb

More numbers:
AK-call: 50% AQ-call: 0% =&gt; +0.10
AK-call: 40% AQ-call: 0% =&gt; +0.19
AK-call: 70% AQ-call: 10% =&gt; -0.05
AK-call: 70% AQ-call: 30% =&gt; +0.02


Maybe one can assign the pp a bit higher probability, given he has called to the river. But then
again, one might assume he folds a pp a few percent (3-5 % ?) of the time?! And maybe JJ needs to be accounted?

More ideas to make a better ev calculation?

[flair1239]

An OK straightforward player is not folding many hands on the river that he would not have folded on the turn. On a drawless board with him in call down mode, I expect to be shown a PP here more often than not.

I am checking.

[Solid_p]

A graph over the break even point of betting, given the assumptions I made. Although my assumptions might be oversimplified crap...

http://www.ing.umu.se/~ce99gpn/EV.gif

[chief444]

As Smiley said, players who raise 88/99 UTG don't check/call the whole way on this board.

[Solid_p]

Then all the more reason to bet at the end, right? Folding AK would be the primary target, and getting some from worse aces secondary.

[Alex/Mugaaz]

This seems like a clear bet because of these factors.

1-Villain opened from EP, then fell asleep post flop.

2-If he is agro enough to open with medium PP pf, then he's going to get aggressive postflop here too.
2a-If for some reason he did have a pp, he's playing it weakly enough that there is a fair chance he can be bet off it.

3-His play looks exactly like 2 high cards, it talks like 2 high cards, and it walks like 2 high cards. If we bet and he folds, we don't lose anything. If we bet he'll call fairly often.

4-The bad case scenario of betting and being called by a better hand loks by far to be the least likely possibility, There looks to be aLmost no chance of us getting raised either. How often do you get this good an oppurtunity?

My first post, and I'm a newbie to serious poker thought, so bear this in mind. As someone who has worked/is working to overcome similar tight/weak tendencies, I think I'm closer to UTG+1/Villain's mindset than some of the others.

That said:

1) A passive-but-reasonably-thinking player in this spot will have a read on how -you- play, too. And you would be put on A-K, A-Q, A-J or a middle pocket pair or higher; this assumes that UTG+1 also knows how you are likely to react to his/her pre-flop raise, probably showing at least some degree of respect for it.

2) Even a passive player would be likely as not to cap pre-flop w/ AK (usually), QQ or JJ (again usually) against a player who fits into the picture of you that I believe he/she would create, and would -probably- put you on slick as the likeliest of hands. This leaves A-K (sometimes) A-Q, A-J(probably suited!) and 9-9 as the four most likely opposing hands; the 8-8 and smaller pairs are likelier limp-in hands from UTG+1.

2) 10-10 (and maybe J-J) are possible hands pre-flop, but are eliminated post-flop if they aren't bet by the river. J-J would be bet out by a thinking/passive player on the river (if not the turn), and if this player hit quads you -might- get slowplayed, then check-raised on the river, if you've shown the propensity to push your value bets. 10-10 quads hasn't been mentioned much here, but it's a thin possibility.

3) Similarly, with you likely having been put on A-K or a pair yourself, this player will have folded A-J (certainly) and A-Q (probably) on the turn, unless there's more chasing/calling-station tendency here than we're led to believe. If I were there, I'd be thinking my high cards were dominated and I was on a mighty thin draw.

4) So, the only hands likely to have been checked into you are some occurrences of A-K, a smidge of A-Q, the miracle 10-10, and, of course, 9-9. And I'd bet that's what this player will show. I say check, traditional passivist or not; those that prefer betting here are trying to force that player's actions into their mindset, not the other way around.

So, first post complete, tell me where I'm wrong!

Without reading anyone else's answers...

I tend to be overly-agressive bordering dumb-aggressive. I'm trying very hard to fix this and fix it fast. My initial reaction would be to bet this hand, therefore the correct answer must be the opposite:

CHECK.