Betting on the river

[Angel]

I've seen it written a dozen times or more that there are only two reasons to bet the river: To get a better hand to fold or to get a worse hand to call. Now whether I've read this in a dozen books once or one book a dozen times I'm not sure but I'll refrain from digging out the quote unless someone needs me to.

Has it ever been pointed out that this is not 100% accurate? I would bet the river to 1. get a worse hand to call or 2. a better OR equal hand to fold. Certainly this is obvious but I've never seen it in print - have I been reading the wrong books or suffering from a memory lapse?

Angel

[Ed Miller]

You are correct, you don't want an equal hand to call.

[Copernicus]

Why would you want to get an equal hand to fold?

You would then deny yourself the joy of laughing (or typing lol) with each other when you realize you both capped it pre-flop with 73o.

[Gabe]

See Theory of Poker

[seahunt]

This is true.
Even more inaccurate.
Another reason

You may want to bet to have a worse hand raise you. (providing you believe the other player can be induced to bluff-raise)

lol
/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[huzitup2]

understood by the readers.

You are, of course, correct; this is certainly a valid reason to bet.

But other than in [tough] Omaha games, it doesn't come up very often.

Good point nonetheless.

- H

[huzitup2]

Do you face alot of opponents who are more apt to bluff if you BET than if you CHECK ?

If so, this is an excellnt point.

*

- H

[Ed Miller]

You may want to bet to have a worse hand raise you. (providing you believe the other player can be induced to bluff-raise)

I want my opponents never to consider bluff-raising me. I would much prefer this to someone who bluff-raises a bit too recklessly. In fact, unless your opponent bluff-raised at a comically common frequency, I couldn't imagine any strong player actually wanting to be bluff-raised.

[huzitup2]

There is a play that I have used maybe a dozen times in 20+ years.

It requires a perfect situation, but it has worked every time I've used it.

*

In order to use it you need all of the following to be in place.

You must be first to act with a "wacko" on your immediate left amd an extremely tight player to his left.

*

The last time I tried it there were three of us left when the river arrived.

I had the nut straight which included the Ace "of trump".

The flush card landed on the river.

I KNEW the tight player had a flush, but he could not have the nut flush since I had "the" Ace.

I was fairly sure the "wacko" did not have a flush.

(OK, I was positive since he had flashed had hand in my direction. No I did NOT make an effort to see it; he flashed it in such a way as that I couldn't miss it. He had a set).

I bet out - confident that the wacko would raise; he obliged.

The tight player took about 45 seconds to act before mucking his hand, I called the wacko (re-raising would have looked suspicious) and took down a nice pot.

*

"Don't try this at home", (lol), but if the situation is perfect it can be executed.

- H

[huzitup2]

This is as true as the grass is green.

Excellent point (which I totally overlooked).

*

Nicely done,

- H

[mostsmooth]

[ QUOTE ]
This is true.
Even more inaccurate.
Another reason

You may want to bet to have a worse hand raise you. (providing you believe the other player can be induced to bluff-raise)

lol
/images/graemlins/wink.gif


[/ QUOTE ]
also, you would bet if you knew you were beat and wanted to burn your last chip so you could go home

[Louie Landale]

Excellent nit-pick.

But anyway that whole advise is only correct if your only objective is to maximize EV of the current hand; a fatal assumption (and in fact, an imperfect objective) in most poker literature. Try these reasons to bet the river:

[] The opponent cannot call and I don't want to show my hand [] My hand is worth a call but I make a little more money by betting myself (he'll call with a few more hands than he'd bet) [] I make this marginally unprofitable bet-for-value to empower my future bluffs [] The opponent is all in and I want to [a] pretend to bluff [b] pretend I didn't notice. [] I'm 'protecting' the terrible all-in player who I want to win this pot (rather than the 3rd player) so he stays and plays. [] we both obviously have [a] the nuts, or [b] the same hand, he's going to call, and I want to look like a bone-head.

There are hundreds of reasons to bet on the river, and I can prove it.

- Louie