Daily Hand - Raising on the river after a donk bet on a scare card

[DawnToDusk]

6 handed game. My read on the villian is that he is LAP. Plays timidly after the flop for the most part unless he really does have a strong hand.

Hero has As 3d in BB
Villian is in SB

Preflop:
EP folds, MP folds, CO folds, Button folds, Villian completes, Hero raises, Villian calls.

Flop: 6h Ac 5c (4 small bets)
Villian checks, Hero bets, Villian calls.

Turn: Kh (2 big bets)
Villian checks, Hero bets, Villian calls.

River: 5d (4 big bets)
Villian bets, Hero raises, Villian calls.

Villian shows Ah 8s for two pair Aces and fives
Hero shows As 3d for two pair Aces and fives

I have been playing pretty aggressively at this table and they were getting fed up with me betting and raising everything. At the same time, I didnt think the villian would be calling down with a 5 in this pot, is what my read had told me. I thought that I could only beat Kings and 6s and tie with aces and fives.

Was this a silly line to take on the river assuming that there was only one hand that I could beat and one hand I could tie with? Should I of just called on the river instead of raised? Im having a hard time finding the EV of the river play in this hand. It just seems like I am paying the house for dealing us the hand and not profitting. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[DawnToDusk]

Should I of not raised expecting only hands that could beat me to call or raise? In this case a hand that I tied with called.

[Dagger78]

I like the hand except for the river raise. Call the river bet. There are very few hands he's betting here that you beat AND will call your raise. He's either betting a 5, A, or bluff. I don't think there is any value in a raise, and do you really want to fold if he 3 bets you?

[veganmav]

What was your thinking behind raising the river?

[Carmine]

No reason to raise river in this hand. You are chopping 95% of the time and losing the other 5%. If villian is bluffing he isn't going to call your raise.

FWIW, I don't like villian's lead either. If you have 66,55,KK you are going to raise and he must call it. I doubt anyone with Ax would fold to a river lead in fear of trips.

[ErrantNight]

river raise is simply unnecessary. if he's bluffing he's not calling your raise. he rarely has a 5 or a better two pair, so when he's not bluffing, you're usually chopping. the few times he's not, he does have a better hand, and you're paying off, or being faced with a 3-bet. so you're either paying the rake, paying your opponent, or not getting paid off.

[DawnToDusk]

So usually just call in these scenarios.

That aside, what are you calling with on different types of scare cards? Like for example lets say somehow I wound up with aces up. And the river was a scare card that completed a flush (three on the board) and the villian leads into me. What then? Just call a bet? What if the scare card is even worse and completes a straight as well? Are we going to have to pay off in situations where the villian leads into us on the river when its a scare card if the pot is big?

[DawnToDusk]

Looking back its hard to say as the hand is from my history that I am going through. It might of largely been read dependent, which I think it was.

I didn't believe the villian to have a 5 as he wasn't going to far postflop without semi-decent hands. Now it wouldn't be hard for me to beleive he had like A5 in the SB and called all the way down to do some damage on the river, but if that was the case, I found the bet where he bet into me to be fishy. Why wouldn't he go for the check raise?

So my logic was this. If he is on a bluff (which I didn't think he was capable of making) he would fold. If he did have a hand that was marginal and worth calling, I would beat him. If he could beat me (bad) I would most likely get reraised from this passive player. Even if he could beat me I didn't feel like he would nessicarily reraise with the nuts. He was a weak player.

Going through my mind I thought that there was a certain percentage to both of these and that it was a lil over %50 percent that he was bluffing combined with he had a marginal hand that I could beat.

[ErrantNight]

against unknowns in large pots? the simple answer is: yes.

you will make no money by making big laydowns on scare cards.

now, in a tiny ass pot against a known opponent that rarely if ever bluff-bets river scare cards... sure, you could make a laydown. but it's dangerous to start off with that mindset. better to assume you're calling and work from there.

[ErrantNight]

if he's on a bluff you gain nothing by getting him to fold...

but more worrisome is the following:

f he did have a hand that was marginal and worth calling, I would beat him. If he could beat me (bad) I would most likely get reraised from this passive player. Even if he could beat me I didn't feel like he would nessicarily reraise with the nuts. He was a weak player.


what marginal hand can he have hear that you beat that he seems at al likely to have that he calls your raise with?

further... if he's a passive player he's not likely playing a 3-bet here without a great hand... so saying that you'll likely get reraised by a passive player (implying it's an easy fold if you get 3-bet) and can fold, AND you're so lucky that he might not 3-bet sometimes.

all in all this is very convenient, and wholly unlikely thinking. i know i discussed this elsewhere in the thread... just reiterating what dangerous thinking this is.

[Dagger78]

Heads up in this pot, there is no card that would come on the river that would make me fold to the villians river bet.

A pair of Aces in Blind v. Blind play is much too strong to fold.