150/300 hand

[bicyclekick]

6max 150/300 and I've been playing mb 15 minutes and am running good. Haven't had any confrontations with the villain in this hand yet though. He's probably a pretty straightforword and a little too tight of a player (i pretty much only play 6max on interpoker so his stats are from short handed - 18/9/1 through the 170 hands I've played with him and I don't remember him at all and he really hasn't done much this session.

Villain raises in the high-jack and I call 8/images/graemlins/spade.gif7/images/graemlins/spade.gif in the bb. Hate it vs player described?

Flop J/images/graemlins/spade.gifT/images/graemlins/spade.gif3/images/graemlins/heart.gif

I check call.

Turn 7/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

I bet, he calls.

River 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif

My line?

[lil feller]

Bet/fold sounds right I think. I don't think he's aggressive enough to bet a worse hand here, but he may very well read your turn donk as some goofy draw and might call with A-high. If he was slowplaying something big on the turn, he'll raise the river and you can safely fold.

I don't play much short handed online, and certainly don't play 150/300, but i'd go w/ bet/fold here.

lf

[climber]

Well I'm def not qualified to respond to this but I'm looking to improve my game so hopefully its Ok and you can tell me if you think i have something wrong.

Against an opponent who is apparently this straight forward I think you have a bet/fold situation on the river. If I think the opponent is tricky enough to bluff raise the river ever then I check/call and feel pretty good about the hand. Assuming I read your post correctly he raise 9% PFR at SH tables over 170 hands. This is a pretty narrow range that to me means missed overs, AJs, maybe ATs, pairs TT+. So I conclude if you are beat its not close but his actions make me think you are ahead so i bet.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]

Villain raises in the high-jack and I call 8/images/graemlins/spade.gif7/images/graemlins/spade.gif in the bb. Hate it vs player described?


[/ QUOTE ]

You can't possibly be considering folding preflop right?

[obi---one]

bet

[baronzeus]

i dont understand why you bet the turn. i would alternate between c/c and c/r on that card. can you explain why you donked it with a showdownable hand?



river seems like an easy bet imo.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
6max 150/300 and I've been playing mb 15 minutes and am running good. Haven't had any confrontations with the villain in this hand yet though. He's probably a pretty straightforword and a little too tight of a player (i pretty much only play 6max on interpoker so his stats are from short handed - 18/9/1 through the 170 hands I've played with him and I don't remember him at all and he really hasn't done much this session.

Villain raises in the high-jack and I call 8/images/graemlins/spade.gif7/images/graemlins/spade.gif in the bb. Hate it vs player described?

Flop J/images/graemlins/spade.gifT/images/graemlins/spade.gif3/images/graemlins/heart.gif

I check call.

Turn 7/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

I bet, he calls.

River 5/images/graemlins/heart.gif

My line?

[/ QUOTE ]

first of all, i don't think pf is bad.

I don't think he's betting Ace-high on the river, but may call. Bet, and I think you can fold easily to a raise.

[Surfbullet]

Bob,

I would probably call a river raise. What hand does he smoothcall the turn with that raises the river? The play makes no sense and will be a bluff enough times to call IMO.

Surf

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Bob,

I would probably call a river raise. What hand does he smoothcall the turn with that raises the river? The play makes no sense and will be a bluff enough times to call IMO.


[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose, but IMO a guy like this (agg:1) is not getting cute on the river.

[oreogod]

[ QUOTE ]
Bob,

I would probably call a river raise. What hand does he smoothcall the turn with that raises the river? The play makes no sense and will be a bluff enough times to call IMO.

Surf

[/ QUOTE ]

you are right it might be a K-high bluff enough times (even A-high---- but that idea may not be right against this type of player)...but I do this sometimes with a strong hand if I feel the other player has a weak hand and may fold to a turn raise...sometimes I just call their river bet, sometimes I raise it. But if I know they will call my turn raise and a river bet...then I raise. Just depends.

[Ryno]

Versus that player, with your hand, I think your plan should be to cause more trouble on a flop that allows you to do so.

River - Guys like him will check behind with some hands that beat you, so checking the river is not terrible. But there are enough A-high hands that he could have that he might call with, so I would value bet, and fold to a raise.

Check call to induce a bluff. I don't think he's calling with anything you beat here.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
i dont understand why you bet the turn. i would alternate between c/c and c/r on that card. can you explain why you donked it with a showdownable hand?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is something that drives me nuts. I want to show down, but at the same time when he checks behind on the turn with overs, I puke. Are we not correct to bet this turn given our holding? If he pops us, it sucks, but we have a great deal of outs to improve. I just hate giving a guy a free one here. Please tell me how/if my logic is wrong.

[lil feller]

I don't think you're wrong at all. If we can't count on the villian to bet w/ a worse hand, which certainly seems to be the case here, I think donking is the way to go. Some players will bet regardless of their holding when checked to after showing PF agression, against them w/ this strong of a draw I'd go for c/r.

lf

[lil feller]

[ QUOTE ]
bet

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop, please just stop. Like elindauer and AndyFox have commented on already if you're not going to take the time to elaborate and include the what with your why, don't bother posting. Nobody is impressed by getting your post count up with uninteresting and uninsightful one line quips.

lf

[lil feller]

This villian has an AF of 1.0 in short handed games. He's not betting anything hero beats here. If BK checks and the villian bets, its a clear fold.

He might, however, call w/ a whiffed A-high not believing hero donked a pair. If BK is putting one bet in on this river, it needs to be as the bettor.

lf

[lil feller]

[ QUOTE ]
Bob,

I would probably call a river raise. What hand does he smoothcall the turn with that raises the river? The play makes no sense and will be a bluff enough times to call IMO.

Surf

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not Bob, but I would say JJ or TT might smoothcall the turn. Hero's bet looks like "I think you have AK and I have a pair, and I don't want you to get a free card." If villian interprets it this way, and he has JJ or TT, hero is drawing dead. He also probably knows that BK is capable of bet/folding a pair on the turn, and might wait with a set. I don't think this villian ever raises the river without a better hand.

lf

[Surfbullet]

I didn't look at villains description when I made that post. Thanks for correcting me.

Against a normal, LAGy opponent I would expect it to be a bluff often enough to call b/c it is such an odd line. Against a tight/passive I agree a fold is best.

Surf

[smurfitup]

i bet/fold the river like most other people since ace-high is checking behind but probably calling a bet... why didn't you play the flop faster, though? i'm really curious, since i usually go apeshit on flops like that.

[ QUOTE ]
This villian has an AF of 1.0 in short handed games. He's not betting anything hero beats here. If BK checks and the villian bets, its a clear fold.

He might, however, call w/ a whiffed A-high not believing hero donked a pair. If BK is putting one bet in on this river, it needs to be as the bettor.

lf

[/ QUOTE ]

Even 1 AFs find it hard not to bet a checked river with just with ace high when the obvious draws miss.

[lil feller]

If I thought that that the villian was aggressive enough to bluff-raise the river, I would check/call. I don't think this hand is good enough often enough to warrant 2 big bets on the river.

lf

[PokerMike]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This villian has an AF of 1.0 in short handed games. He's not betting anything hero beats here. If BK checks and the villian bets, its a clear fold.

He might, however, call w/ a whiffed A-high not believing hero donked a pair. If BK is putting one bet in on this river, it needs to be as the bettor.

lf

[/ QUOTE ]

Even 1 AFs find it hard not to bet a checked river with just with ace high when the obvious draws miss.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't make sense. Why would villian bet A hi on river when its not for value and a weaker hand wouldn't call? lil feller is right. If BK is putting one bet in on this river, it needs to be as the bettor.

[oreogod]

[ QUOTE ]
i bet/fold the river like most other people since ace-high is checking behind but probably calling a bet... why didn't you play the flop faster, though? i'm really curious, since i usually go apeshit on flops like that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Against anyone that knows what they are doing HU...they are not folding with that kind of flop action from u...at best if u go crazy on this flop, a decent player might give credit for a Ten. But thats against a good player...in which case he will either go crazy with u (figuring he is either a favorite or coinflop on the flop), pop the turn or let u take a stabs at it on the later streets, calling u down.

Anyway against this player, as long as hes not holding a pair...this board connects with a lot of his holdings. In which case u are going to have to fire on every street if he calls your CR and calls u down. If he doesnt pop u later in the hand, its liekly he either has high face cards or a small pp (with face cards being more likely u have to then judge if he folds to your river bet...which at that point, UI is the only way u are going to win.)

I have no idea if this post is coherent or not, but on this flop, at best its a coinflip...so it doesnt really matter how many bets go in, what does matter is if it effects this players ability to laydown overs, which u become a dog to on the turn. If the control factor will get this guy to laydown on the later streets go for it.

i am probably alone here but have to say check-fold. I doubt he is folding ace-high which is worst hand I couple put him on (maybe KQ). in the long-run, i think this does much better than bet-fold.

[worm33]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i dont understand why you bet the turn. i would alternate between c/c and c/r on that card. can you explain why you donked it with a showdownable hand?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is something that drives me nuts. I want to show down, but at the same time when he checks behind on the turn with overs, I puke. Are we not correct to bet this turn given our holding? If he pops us, it sucks, but we have a great deal of outs to improve. I just hate giving a guy a free one here. Please tell me how/if my logic is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]


I would almost always checkraise the flop, but since he didnt i like to check call the turn. Hes prolly goona bet the turn and if he doesnt its prolly cause hes checking with ace high and we have an easy VB on river. If he bets the turn and we check call, we almost have more cards to reverse imply him than he has to beat us with AQ and KQ. Therefore since BK check called the flop I would check call check call and check fold if missed.

[1800GAMBLER]

Please post this in mid stakes!

You have to bet here. If you check you give him the easiest value bet in the world which you then would be forced to call.

[lil feller]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i dont understand why you bet the turn. i would alternate between c/c and c/r on that card. can you explain why you donked it with a showdownable hand?


[/ QUOTE ]

This is something that drives me nuts. I want to show down, but at the same time when he checks behind on the turn with overs, I puke. Are we not correct to bet this turn given our holding? If he pops us, it sucks, but we have a great deal of outs to improve. I just hate giving a guy a free one here. Please tell me how/if my logic is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]


I would almost always checkraise the flop, but since he didnt i like to check call the turn. Hes prolly goona bet the turn and if he doesnt its prolly cause hes checking with ace high and we have an easy VB on river. If he bets the turn and we check call, we almost have more cards to reverse imply him than he has to beat us with AQ and KQ. Therefore since BK check called the flop I would check call check call and check fold if missed.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure I agree with or understand this logic. Thats a scary board, even for an overpair, and hero isn't likely to get raised. If villian has overs, he probably isn't calling a river bet if he checks the turn, so hero loses potentially 2 bets.

I think leading the turn is the superior play, as it forces over/gutters to make a mistake calling when they think they have 10 outs and they actually have closer to 6 or 7.

If hero gets raised on the turn, its an easy c/f if we miss. Either way its 2 bets if we lose to a monster, and leading collects bets from over type hands.

lf

[baronzeus]

lil feller, i see your logic here, but i think c/r is better. i'd rather make overs with gutters pay 2 bets than 1 on the turn. it's just better IMO

[rigoletto]

I like the turn donk ag. a predictable player because I hate to give free cards.

I also like a river bet. Mostly because you don't have to show your hand and you might actually fold a better hand against a player like this.

[lil feller]

sure, but that only works if they bet the turn. Against a guy who clearly is selective with his aggression (as the villian is in this hand) if he's betting the turn, we're probably behind and no longer a favorite with just one card to come.

By betting against this type of opponent we put in one bet when infront and 2 bets when behind (and that only happens if villians hand is strong enough to raise the turn).

If we try to c/r we usually end up putting in zero bets when ahead and 2 when behind and a dog.

Against a more laggy opponent I can certainly see the merit in going for a c/r, but against this villian I just don't see it being the best play.

lf

[ggbman]

First of all, i think you have a strong enough draw and enough equity on the flop to c/r and try to fold underpairs and Ace high type hands on the turn. Given your line, i would bet the river cuz you might OCCASSIONALLY fold 88-99 and also sometimes get called AQ/AK. Any T or J is value betting the river if you check, but is not raising the river if they didnt raise the turn.

Gabe

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
bet

[/ QUOTE ]

Stop, please just stop. Like elindauer and AndyFox have commented on already if you're not going to take the time to elaborate and include the what with your why, don't bother posting. Nobody is impressed by getting your post count up with uninteresting and uninsightful one line quips.

lf

[/ QUOTE ]

hi lil feller,

I read that "bet" post and got frustrated. Then I thought, you know, nobody cares, you'll never convince anybody. Stop getting annoyed and just move on. Then I read your post, and I smiled. Thanks for that.

-Eric

[elindauer]

hi bicyclekick,

You've told us that he is passive postflop, but without telling us how often he gets to showdown, it's hard to tell if he'll call with ace high on the river. Without already knowing that information, I want to find out, so I bet. AK / AQ could easily get to the river just like this, and if he calls with them, it changes a lot of my strategy for handling this guy in future hands.

To me, this knowledge is much more important than any subtle EV difference between check/fold and bet/fold lines. check/call is right out.

my 2 cents.
eric


edit: the more I think about it, the more convinced I become that for your play to make any sense, you have to bet the river and he has to be willing to call with ace high. If not, checking the turn will almost always be the best play.

Checking the turn avoids getting 2 BBs in while drawing and lets you see whether or not he has you beat then. The free card is meaningless, since you will get exactly 1 BB in anyways and cannot prevent him from drawing out. In fact, the check-check turn may save you some money if the river comes off bad.

Unless he is so weak-tight that he won't bet the turn and will fold the river unimproved, donking the turn only makes sense if you are going to bet a non-overcard river too. Betting to make ace high fold on the turn has very little value, as two overcards will not fold, and Ax is likely too weak a hand for him to have raised preflop.

[haakee]

Anybody else like a check-raise on the flop instead of a check-call? What's the plan on a blank turn card after check-calling the flop? Check-call again?

[tonysoldier]

I really like this hand and the discussion that has followed. At these high-stakes short-handed games often the absolutely more straight-forward than straight-forward play is completely overlooked. It was almost shocking to me to see the flop action, but it makes perfect sense. You have a good draw so you call. You hit a card that makes you think you might be good so you bet. He just calls, so you figure that you're probably best. The river comes a blank and so you ... fire again because you think he'll call you with AK or AQ, otherwise, you check. It seems to me like he probably will.

Your line is the best line, hands down, I think. It's so simple, just like the first times I started to "get poker." Really nice, really nice to think about.

[Shandrax]

Costs $300 to call for a $1300 pot, right?

According to my secret formula, you are about a 3.5:1 favorite to win the showdown. Still you probably only get called when you are beat, so check/call seems to be correct.

[DeeJ]

bet/fold

[geormiet]

[ QUOTE ]
I really like this hand and the discussion that has followed. At these high-stakes short-handed games often the absolutely more straight-forward than straight-forward play is completely overlooked. It was almost shocking to me to see the flop action, but it makes perfect sense. You have a good draw so you call. You hit a card that makes you think you might be good so you bet. He just calls, so you figure that you're probably best. The river comes a blank and so you ... fire again because you think he'll call you with AK or AQ, otherwise, you check. It seems to me like he probably will.

Your line is the best line, hands down, I think. It's so simple, just like the first times I started to "get poker." Really nice, really nice to think about.

[/ QUOTE ]


These are my thoughts as well. Also, I prefer check calling the flop over checkraising. Check raising this flop screams semibluff, which will cause your opponent to play correctly against 87s (by folding A high when a scare card hits, and calling down otherwise) whereas check calling almost disguises your hand better.

[daryn]

[ QUOTE ]
Anybody else like a check-raise on the flop instead of a check-call? What's the plan on a blank turn card after check-calling the flop? Check-call again?

[/ QUOTE ]

seems crystal clear to me. i hate the flop play. your hand is huge and likely a favorite over his. then there's the way you describe him, tight i think you said.. why not checkraise (and cap if he 3-bets)?

Check call is best line. If you are beat you are not getting any value by raising, if you think he is a weak player and capable of folding best hand then absoloutly raise. Otherwise check call is best.

[mikelow]

Bet. I think you have to follow through on this. If he is too tight, he might throw away 99 or even AT.

[bicyclekick]

I was convinced by a very good player that check-raising the flop is a slightly better play than check-calling. I'm usually a flop pounder but I fealt like taking it slower on this one.

IMO, the only play on the river is bet/fold. Check-calling is pretty damn bad IMO as I don't think he bets any hands I beat pretty much ever and I don't get any bets from ace-highs like I might by betting. I'm not bet/calling either because this type of player will not bluff-raise me 1 time in 6 or whatever the pot will be giving me on that board I don't think.

[Paluka]

BK why do you dismiss the possibility of check and fold? Don't you think this guy would take a free showdown with ace high? Your hand certainly looks like a missed draw or a pair that plans on calling a bet.

[mike l.]

check fold is not as good because this player sounds like he will call with A high every time.

[bicyclekick]

I don't dismiss it. I don't know why I didn't make a comment on it in my post, just forgot I guess.

I think check/fold is better than everything except bet fold.

I think it's decently close but I think betting is superior.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
check fold is not as good because this player sounds like he will call with A high every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't the only factor that matters. You need to know how often he has ace high, how often he'll check a better hand on the river, if he'll ever fold a better hand, etc...

[Shandrax]

Forget my previous posting!

If you check and he bets there is $1600 in the pot and it costs $300 to call = 5.33:1

What can you beat?
A-K (16)
A-Q (16)
K-Q (16)
Q-9s (4)
Q-8s (3)
A-xs (32)
K-xs (32)
6-6 (12)
4-4 (12)
2-2 (12)
BLUFF
= 155 + x

What beats you?
A-A (12)
K-K (12)
Q-Q (12)
J-J (6)
T-T (6)
9-9 (12)
8-8 (6)
7-7 (6)
5-5 (6)
A-J (12)
K-J (12)
Q-J (12)
A-T (12)
K-T (12)
Q-T (12)
J-T (9)
J-9 (12)
T-9 (12)
J-8 (9)
T-8 (9)
9-8 (12)
6-4 (16)
= 229

There are 229 combinations to beat you. Given the 5.33:1 odds you only need 43 combinations to beat him order to break even. If you scratch some foolish combinations that will never go to the river (2-2, Q-8s and such) from the list and leave him with just 2 high overcards (A-K, A-Q, K-Q) you are still well over 43 combinations that you can beat and bluffs on his part are not even counted.

Without much of a read on the opponent I can't see how a fold in this situation can be justified. Sorry, but it's a clear check/call and nothing else.

If I am wrong on this, then I will throw my copy of "Play Poker like the Pros" out of the window /images/graemlins/wink.gif

You are implicitly assuming that he always bluffs with the hands you listed.

If that was the case, then check/call would be correct. However, I hardly see those bluffs in position on the river in the high stakes games.

[Shandrax]

I assume that he called on 4th street with (maybe too) many hands, yes. On the river it is not that easy to call it "just a bluff" since any overcard to a jack can technically win the pot.

All our hero needs to do to break even is to beat 43 more or less legitimate combinations. A-K, A-Q and K-Q make up for 48 combinations.

The question is, would your opponent bet such hands on the river? With ace high, maybe he can make a small pair like 7-7 fold. Don't forget that he could have had 6-6 also. That's another 12 combinations and a very legitimate hand.

[lil feller]

I'm sure you mean well, but advocating a check/call in this situation against this type of opponent is just not very good advice.

If you were against an opponent whose PF range is much wider, and who would be more likely to bet part of this range that we beat, and who would be more likely to bluff raise with hands in that range that have zero showdown value, I could see the value in a check/call line.

Here, however, the villian has a narrow preflop range, and very limited post flop aggression. He is virtually never betting any hand on the river that hero is in front of, certainly not often enough to justify a call. This villian also is never bluff-raising this river. He will, however, call with many of his non-pair but showdownable hands.

The only reasonable choices for hero on this river is to bet/fold to collect from A-high hands and/or fold 88 or 99 and/or avoid showing his hand. Check/fold is also viable, but not optimal as this villian is likely to call with A-high.

The numbers your throwing out mean very little because you're not taking into account the cominations the villian is more likely to have played that way, and what he's likely to do with them.

lf

[Dave Mac]

these two posts are just two reasons why you are not good.
dave

[Shandrax]

That's of course correct. All the possible hands have to be analyzed in relation to villain's pre-flop selection. If I remember correctly then villain was on the button, so he will open with lots of hands.

The theory to judge the chances that I was using is rather simple:
There is a number of hands that beat you -> X
There is a number of hands that you can beat -> Y
There is a number of hands that can be logically excluded -> E

Your chances on the river are (Y-E)/X and if that is in line with the pot odds you are getting, then it's at least a call.

What you are saying is that E is very high, so the chances to win the showdown are extremely slim and that might well be the case. Even then it is not a clear fold. Given the pot odds you should still bluff-raise with the correct frequency.

Therefore the correct answer to the question is a percentage mix. Advice advocating a pure strategy like always check/call (like my own) or always bet/fold must be wrong.

[lil feller]

[ QUOTE ]
If I remember correctly then villain was on the button, so he will open with lots of hands.


[/ QUOTE ]

With a VPIP of only 18 in short handed play, I don't think is range is as wide as some might suggest.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore the correct answer to the question is a percentage mix. Advice advocating a pure strategy like always check/call (like my own) or always bet/fold must be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

This I can certainly agree with. I don't have the time/energy to do the math, but if the options are

bet/fold, check/fold, check/call I would say

{70, 20, 10}

lf

[chaosuk]

I reckon you dismiss bet-call too easily here; either way I don't much differentiate between either bet-call or bet fold, simply because the river raise seems so unlikely here. It's this unlikeliness that can mislead us, we may find his actions to be a bluff-raise to be only 1 in 100, but if he only raises 1 in 20? This is obvious Bayesian logic (& and I'm not suggesting you are rationalising '1 in 6 bluff' any other way here), but on the fly these unlikely events can fool us so easily. I'd be very surprised to see our, presumably non-creative opponent, raise the river but call the turn with an top pair over-pair, pre-river set. There are so many cards that scupper the delayed (river) raise for this guy. I think I'd like even money 55 fron this non-agg oppo, though he might not even be there with it, under which suspicion I'd simply have to call. That all said, overall it makes precious little differnece between bet-call and bet fold, because the latter is so unlikely.

Also, I'd find check-calling quite hard, and so even check-folding was the slightly better play over, say, bet-folding, I'd still prefer the latter becasue I know that I'd misplay the check fold strategy (i.e. check-call) too often, the cost of which must be a consdieration when you determine which strategy to deploy.

Off for a couple of days, but I'll look in later.

regards

chaos