AK suited on the button.

[Bob T.]

Online 3-6 game.

Three limpers, I raise on the button with A /images/graemlins/heart.gifK /images/graemlins/heart.gif

BB calls, limpers call.

Flop A /images/graemlins/spade.gif9 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif8 /images/graemlins/club.gif

Checked to me, 1 caller, MP checkraises, I three bet, caller folds, MP calls. Headsup to the turn.

Turn K /images/graemlins/spade.gif

MP checks I bet, he calls.

River T /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

MP checks, I bet, MP checkraises, your play?

Results tonight.

[ropey]

Interesting...I'm not sure what he would have checkraised the flop with that a 10 would help him on the river. Maybe A 10...but I really wouldn't give this much thought...I would just call. It's difficult to see what your opponent has here, but he very well could have you beat.

-ropey

[banditbdl]

I'd call. I think your probably gonna lose this one, but I think you have to make the crying call in this situation.

[Brian]

Hi Bob,

I think he has 88 or 99. He probably check-raised the Flop hoping to get more money into the pot, and then when he realized it was going to be heads up, he decided to let you take the lead and slowplay some more. The other possibility is AT, but I would just call it down here. TT is a small possibility. Did you have any information on the player?

-Brian

[rkiray]

Unless MP is a real rock (doubtful at this level) I'd call. But I wouldn't be happy.

[Bob T.]

Did you have any information on the player?


He hadn't done anything to stand out, so I was treating him as a generic player.

[mauisupaman]

Hey Bob,
I'd just call here. Hope he didn't pull a funny play here with 76. Can't see why he'd CR the flop, check-call the turn, and then CR the river. Of course, I've played a set like that when I knew my opponent was holding AK top pair just to switch it up.

[Guido]

I put him on AT or a set and would call although I wouldn't like it.

[rharless]

I agree with everyone... call. The pot is laying you 13:1 and I think your hand will win more than 7-8% of the time. You can't fold. I believe he could have AT, even T9 or T8 (crazy flop play but I've seen stranger). Possibly even AK too. 88/99/67, even TT seem most likely here, of course, but there's just too many possible hands that you could beat, to fold.

I have no idea what percentage confidence you need to 3-bet. This is part of why I am still so weak (but getting better) in understanding river betting. As I understand, if he is not going to fold, you need to have the better hand about 55% of the time to bet (the extra 5% accounting for the check-raising buffer)? In this case, I think the probability of him 4-betting you is higher than the average check-raising allowance, so you need to be "really" confident of winning to 3-bet. This situation presents nowhere near that level of confidence.

Bob, I know you have spent a lot of time thinking about river betting... these are more questions for you to answer than helpful answers to your post. What is the right approach? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[tiltboy]

[ QUOTE ]
MP checks, I bet, MP checkraises, your play?

[/ QUOTE ]
Easy call, IMO. Folding is out of the question here with you getting 15:1 on the call. I'd call with just a pair of aces here not to mention top 2 pair.

[GuyOnTilt]

...I'm pretty sure he isn't thinking about folding here. In fact, I'm 100% sure that thought hasn't even entered his mind. His question (correct me if I'm wrong here Bob T) is whether he should 3-bet, or just call.

I would 3-bet here unless I think my opponent is capable of slowplaying a set till the river. If he's loose preflop and a wanna-be tricky player post-flop, then 76s is possible, but I think you're going to be ahead here more than 55% of the time, even with the river c/r. I 3-bet expecting to be shown a worse 2-pair.

[Brian]

Hi Bright,

I think Bob's opponent has shown a tremendous amount of strength in this hand. He's check-raised the pre-Flop raiser twice on an Ace high board, one time being on the River. Assuming a typical opponent, more often than not I would expect to see something other than two pair here. Keep in mind, you'll gain 1 bet when you're right, but lose 2 when you're wrong.

-Brian

[GuyOnTilt]

Most opponents at low limits are not tricky enough to slowplay a set heads-up till the river. I've never seen it, even at 5/10. They will c/r you on the turn. I don't think he has a set, but if he does, I'll give him kudos on a well played hand. The only hand I'm really worried about here is 76s.

[Bob T.]

Ok, the board is A98-K-T rainbow, and I get checkraised on the river and I hold AK.

As GOT said, I wasn't thinking about folding, what I did, is threebet, and my opponent called, and he held as some surmised AT. Afterward, I was trying to decide if my three bet was a good idea here or not, in fact, I woke up this morning still trying to decide. So I posted the hand to see what everyone else thought.

When he checkraised the flop, I thought that it was likely that he had an Ace, and the river action was unusual enough that I thought he could have a slowplayed set, AT, or a goofily played QJ, or maybe 76. I decided that his play fit AT, and if he capped it, I was going to play Tommy Angelo.... ' Raise the river, and fold for one more bet.'

So when I three bet him, was I on something, or onto something?

[rharless]

I find these reads to be really hard to make online.

I guess one of the keys in 3-betting is to be able to make that 4-bet laydown, which I don't think I can do. Since I can't yet make those hard decisions, I avoid them.

You made your read and you went with it. I guess since you are now asking about the 3-bet, what you're really asking is "How reasonable is the AT read?" To be honest, I find I am usually beat when I am check-raised on the river, after going gangbusters on earlier streets.

How do you think the guy with the AT played?

[Redhotman]

I think he has AT, three-bet it.

[GuyOnTilt]

Why do you think you are beat on the river here? What specific hands do you put him on?

[Redhotman]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, the board is A98-K-T rainbow, and I get checkraised on the river and I hold AK.

As GOT said, I wasn't thinking about folding, what I did, is threebet, and my opponent called, and he held as some surmised AT. Afterward, I was trying to decide if my three bet was a good idea here or not, in fact, I woke up this morning still trying to decide. So I posted the hand to see what everyone else thought.

When he checkraised the flop, I thought that it was likely that he had an Ace, and the river action was unusual enough that I thought he could have a slowplayed set, AT, or a goofily played QJ, or maybe 76. I decided that his play fit AT, and if he capped it, I was going to play Tommy Angelo.... ' Raise the river, and fold for one more bet.'

So when I three bet him, was I on something, or onto something?

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would you fold in this situation if he caps it?
The only hand that made sense for him to have is AT.
He was banking that you, A: Had a Paair, B: Raised a Multiway hand form Button like QJs.
He called you down and then made two pair on the river, and check-raised you. I would three-bet and call a cap here everytime.

[GuyOnTilt]

I would three-bet and call a cap here everytime.

I wouldn't call a cap here unless I knew my opponent to be LAG. Normal opponents wouldn't cap here without a straight or a set.

[Redhotman]

[ QUOTE ]
I would three-bet and call a cap here everytime.

I wouldn't call a cap here unless I knew my opponent to be LAG. Normal opponents wouldn't cap here without a straight or a set.

[/ QUOTE ]
But dont you think you are giving too much up if he is bluffing? He would only have to be bluffing 5% of the time for calling to be correct.

[GuyOnTilt]

But dont you think you are giving too much up if he is bluffing? He would only have to be bluffing 5% of the time for calling to be correct.

A non-LAG opponent will be bluffing here much less than 5% of the time. I'd imagine it's less than .5%. If my opponent were LAG, I'd be caling like I said.

[rharless]

I think 88/99 to be most likely. I know you said you hadn't run into players who slow play to the river with a set, but I definitely have.

In my experience, the only hand he can "logically" play this way, that I can beat, is AT. There's 8 ways he can have that hand. For 88/99/67, all of them might be check-raised on a multiway-flop, then check-called on the turn (to trap with the first two, or b/c on a draw for the last one). There's 22 ways the opponent can have those hands. I think any of those are as likely as AT. I am losing more than 75% of the time. There's other outside possibilities of A8/A9/T8/T9/TT but none of those seem particularly possible.

If AT had lead-bet the river, I can easily raise my top two. I think I need more "hand" to 3-bet a check-raised river, than the hand strength that I need to raise a simple lead-bet. He's check-raised me twice now when it seems like my hand is "obvious".

All said, however, I believe river betting to be the weakest part of my game.

[GuyOnTilt]

Fair enough. Being over-aggressive on the river may be a leak for me. I'm going to think this over for a while and get back to you.

[JTG51]

I'm going to think this over for a while and get back to you.

Don't think too long, this is an easy 3-bet. I'm pretty surprised so many posters think otherwise. AT is by far the most likely hand.

[rharless]

FWIW, you made me curious enough to query my poker tracker database for some betting patterns. (Every now and then I'm so happy I know SQL. /images/graemlins/smile.gif ) My db is not huge (11k hands) but just call me a curious cat. My db is 90% 2/4 and 3/6 hands.

I selected all pair hole card hands where I "know" the player flopped a set (i.e. it's in the hand history), and I filtered out hands where I was the player -- this equals 415 total hands. For determining EV, I know this is a small sample size, but I would say it's a fair size for observing betting patterns.

45% played aggressively on the flop.
30% played deceptively on the flop and then lowered the boom on the turn.
15% played deceptively on the flop and the turn, then lowered the boom on the river.
10% were never aggressive.

(I filtered myself out because I play aggressively on the flop 70% of the time and so my hands skewed the results.)

"Aggressive" is defined as betting/raising only. If the player in any way calls (e.g. Bet, call a raise) then I classified it as deceptive.

This by no means prove that Bob had to put the guy on a set, and it's pretty hard to sit here and hold to my guns when the results clearly prove AT was the opponents hand. But the betting patterns of a flopped set are at least worth a consideration.

[ZManODS]

[ QUOTE ]
A non-LAG opponent will be bluffing here much less than 5% of the time. I'd imagine it's less than .5%. If my opponent were LAG, I'd be caling like I said.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot the key information that he was playing 3/6 online and he didnt know his oppenent. There are plenty of horrible players that would cap the river with absolute trash. A call is mandatory.

[JTG51]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Are you saying your data indicates that this betting pattern is likely to be a set? You said 15% wait till the river. That's not a whole lot.

Also, how many of those 15% were out of position and "lowered the boom" with a check raise on the river, as Bob's opponent did here? I'm guessing not many. I'll bet the vast majority of the players that waited till the river had position on their opponent.

[GuyOnTilt]

I completely disagree with you here. A call is most definitely not mandatory unless your opponent is LAG. If a non-LAG player caps the river, you're beaten more often than the pot odds on your call justify. If he caps it, calling is going to be -EV against all opponents except LAG's.

[GuyOnTilt]

Okay, I've taken some time to think it over, and I still think 3-betting this river is the best way to go. I can't see an opponent playing a set this way at these limits, so the only hand I need to be concerned about it 76s. Would this particular opponent check-raise the flop with this hand? Or is he more likely to have a worse 2 pair? A worse 2-pair will call, netting you 1 BB on a 3-bet. 76s will cap, and I won't call, losing me 1 BB on the 3-bet. Then there's the very, very few times that my opponent will have a set or will bluff-cap the river. Given all the possibilities, I think I need to have my opponent beaten between 55% and 60% of the time to make 3-betting the right play. I think he's top-two is good more than 60% of the timie here. I still vote to 3-bet.

[Your Mom]

I played this exact same hand with about the exact same board at 5/10 last week. I 3 betted and had the same result. I think the 3 bet/fold to a raise is the right play here. More times than not, you'll see 2 pair. Coinicedntly, I would just call at 1/2 or maybe even 2/4. Those players never seem to raise unless they made the straight or (far less likely) slowplayed a set. Folding here is just ridiuclous.

[mauisupaman]

Hey Bob why do you suppose this guy attempted to CR you on the river? I can't see too many hands that you might raise PF with, lead all the way with that board, and then fold for one more bet on the river. Your two options were call or raise. Do you suppose he thought that he might be able to make you drop it on the end with a CR?

[mauisupaman]

JT,
Can you please explain your reasoning here: [ QUOTE ]
AT is by far the most likely hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks

[rharless]

I did not say, or mean to imply, "likely" to be a set. GOT had said he had never seen a flopped set slowplayed to the river and so was discounting this as a possibility. My only point is that it should be considered.

Of the 15%, yes, the majority were "straight forward aggressive". Of 61 slow-played-to-the-river hands, 36 suddenly lead bet, 4 check-raised, and the remaining 21 were just plain old raises with position (thus 2/3rd were out of position, 1/3 had position). So 10% of those hands that "could" check raise, did. Some of the ones who lead bet were probably scared the river would be checked which the c/r in this hand did not have to fear. Likewise, some considerable number of the original 10% who were never aggressive on any street, probably missed a river checkraise.

I am not trying to illustrate that a set is the "likely" conclusion. What I am trying to illustrate is that running into flopped sets that are slowplayed to the river is not as uncommon as GOT might think, which was one step in his hand reading analysis.

The real stats question to ask is "how many low limit Party players check raise the river against someone who raised preflop and 3-bet the A-high flop with a K following on the board and no possible flush" -- but of course that seems rather silly and I am quite sure my sample size of hands that fits that betting pattern would be excruciatingly small.

My own experience/impression is that after I have clearly "defined" my hand via early street play, if I am check-raised on the river, that this is usually not two pair. Obviously this is incorrect in this scenario as Bob, GOT, and you have made better reads than I have.

[GuyOnTilt]

I'm sure he thought he sucked out on AQ or AJ.

[rharless]

Fair enough. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I do not think I personally can fold to the 4-bet in the heat of the battle, so I need to have a probability of having my opponent beat here more than your 55-60%. I need a wider buffer to allow for the bets I almost definitely lose when I call the cap.

[mauisupaman]

He must have some macroorchidism cause if I were in his shoes I'd be afraid of loosing an extra bet by CR or worse yet running into Bob and loosing two extra bets when I got popped back. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[JTG51]

I did not say, or mean to imply, "likely" to be a set. GOT had said he had never seen a flopped set slowplayed to the river and so was discounting this as a possibility. My only point is that it should be considered.

Gotcha. I didn't read all of the posts very thoroughly. I missed the part where GOT said he'd never seen a set played that way. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[JTG51]

Most players wouldn't wait till the river to check raise a set. As rharless showed it does happen, just not very often. His flop check raise looks a lot more like a pair of Aces than a straight draw, and it looks like the T on the river helped him, so that makes AT the likely hand.

[JTG51]

I'm sure he thought he sucked out on AQ or AJ.

More likely he thought, "Oh, I have two pair. Two pair is good, I'm gonna check raise."

[Bob T.]

And a LAG/Maniac, isn't going to let the turn play out for just one bet, is he? I thought I had that much of a read on him.

[banditbdl]

While I don't think a call on a river cap is mandatory I don't think calling is -EV against all non-LAG players either. If Bob's opponent is crazy enough to checkraise his AT then I don't think a cap with the AT would be completely out of the question. I would call the cap unless I knew my opponent to be on the rockish side.

[GuyOnTilt]

Yeah, I'm not saying your specific opponent was. I was just saying that if a typical opponent caps after you 3-bet, you should fold. Were you going to?

[Bob T.]

How do you think the guy with the AT played? \

Not very well. I thought that my play pretty well described my hand. If I had a big Ace, was I really going to play this way if I have AJ, the only Ace I can beat with this board then is AQ, and if I have AQ, the only Ace I can beat is AJ. His flop checkraise frequently shows an Ace, and with this board, I don't think that I can bet either AQ or AJ for value on the river, so if he can beat only those hands, he shouldn't checkraise the river. Similarly, if I can beat only AT, if he shouldn't checkraise that on the river, should I be three betting when I get checkraised?

(And you thought that you asked a lot of questions in your post. /images/graemlins/grin.gif)

Anyway, this is one of those hands, that I played, and I think I made a poor choice, but I got an extra bet afterward.

[Bob T.]

I was planning on folding, with 3 possible straights out there, I thought that the minimum capping hand would be a set.

[GuyOnTilt]

Since you planned on folding to a cap on the river, I think you played flawlessly. Good hand.

[JTG51]

[ QUOTE ]
...and with this board, I don't think that I can bet either AQ or AJ for value on the river...

[/ QUOTE ]

Whoa, I don't like the sounds of that. Why do you assume that your opponent has to have a 'good' ace? Haven't you seen a thousand online players check raise the flop in a situation like this with A2?

I think you'd have a very easy value bet on that river with either AQ or AJ, and like I said in another post it was an easy 3-bet with AK.

[Bob T.]

Actually, after writing that, and thinking about it, I know I would bet them for value on the river. I retract that statement.

After having read your posts in this thread, I think I like my three bet more, thanks for the coherent arguments for three betting.

[JTG51]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, after writing that, and thinking about it, I know I would bet them for value on the river. I retract that statement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank god. I was worried that someone stole your computer and was trying to make you look like a sissy. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
thanks for the coherent arguments for three betting.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're welcome. Thanks for starting an interesting debate.