River all-in: Good or bad?

[The Ram]

1/2 NL at Stars

LP w/ red JJ

Folds to me, I raise to $6, button calls, BB raises 4 more to $10. I decide to test him and force button out, so I make it another $14. Both call.

Flop is As 8s 2d

BB checks, so I decide to make my action for the hand now: either take it down or go to check or fold if there is a caller. I bet $50 and get called by BB. So now, my decision is to just fold if he bets, or otherwise check down.

Turn makes it Ks (As 8s 2d). He checks, I check.

River is Qs (Ks As 8s 2d). He checks to me.

So here was my dilemma. There is $176 in the pot. We each have about $90 in front of us. I'm almost certain that he had some sort of big ace, like AK or AQ, so he could certainly has 2 pair at this point. But, there is a 4-flush on board, so if I'm right there is no way he could have a flush.

So, after he checks to me on the river, I shoved in, figuring that assuming my read was right he couldn't possibly call all-in on a board like that, since i could quite reasonably have a loner spade. Otherwise, I have no chance of winning this rather sizeable pot.

Thoughts?

[Ignatius]

Well, he needs to fold more than 1/3 of the times to make your bluff worthwhile. If you put him on a big ace (AK-AT), there are 9 AK, 9 AQ, 6 AJ and 12 AT for a total of 36 hands, 6 of which contain a spade and 12 of which are mere top pairs. Asuming that he would muck the latter, your bluff would already break even.
.
Considering that he didn't bet the turn, which makes AK as well as AxJs less likely, and that you should be able to sometimes move him off twopair (although I don't share your optimism that "he couldn't possibly call all-in"), your bluff should be +EV.

[JKratzer]

Because he checked to you on the river, after you showed weakness on the turn by checking behind him, I don't read him for a high flush. At the same time, because of your check on the turn, he wouldn't necessarily have to give you credit for making a flush on the river (many players would bet their draw on the turn in this situation), and he could call you with as little as two pair or trips. I would say based on your opponent previously calling the $50 bet he is more likely to call with less than a flush, and this bet has a negative EV.

Kratzer

[Shaun]

You should absolutely bet here. You probably won't win a showdown, so put him to a decision. Basically, here you choose the lesser of two evils: would you rather lose 90 more but possibly win over 200- or check down and lose the 200 to a hand with no flush- that you probably could have bluffed out. It's worth the risk in my opinion. Heck if he calls you and wins at the very least you have set up an image that will probably be profitable later on.

[Jon Matthews]

I like the thinking that he can't have the flush if he has high cards, yeah shove it in. The only problem is if he just made 2 pair or a set and feels 3:1 is worth it to call, just like you thought a half pot all-in bluff was worth it then... well, I like the thinking anyway.


Jon

[The Bear]

I'm interested in what you have to say about TheRam's play, since it seems like a play you would make.

[Zag]

Assuming the player is good enough to lay down top two, I like the bet (given your read). Even though it will not work all the time, it should work enough that it is worth it.

However, I don't like your read very much. I can't see AK failing to bet the turn. Sure, it has to fear that you were semi-bluffing a spade draw on the flop, but, with the As out there, is it unlikely. I could believe he has AQ, but, since the river improved him, he is more likely to call than with AK. (A weird psychological quirk that seems to be true more often than I can fathom.)

Anyway, he probably has an ace, so he has less than 1/4 chance of having the flush. Therefore, I still like the bet, since he will probably lay down any hand that is only a pair.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

It all depends upon what you know about the opponent. Against some it's a terrible bet, and against others a very smart bet. We don't know enough from this post to say which it was.

As for the preflop play, I'm not liking the last raise. First raise to 6 is good, 3xBB as the first player in. Button calls and BB raises to 10. Now our hero raises again to 24. Too small to achieve the stated purpose of driving out the button. Either flat call and see if the flop looks good, or raise to at least 30, preferably 35, looking to take the pot down right now.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[tewall]

"You should absolutely bet here. You probably won't win a showdown, so put him to a decision."

This is irrelevant.

"would you rather lose 90 more but possibly win over 200- or check down and lose the 200 to a hand with no flush- that you probably could have bluffed out."

This isn't right. You're not losing 200 if you don't bet. You're losing 0.

There's only one question. If you go all in, will he fold the slightly over 1/3 of the time needed to make that bet profitable? What has happened before this point has no bearing at all, other than to provide clues as to how likely it is that he will fold.

[tewall]

"At the same time, because of your check on the turn, he wouldn't necessarily have to give you credit for making a flush on the river (many players would bet their draw on the turn in this situation), and he could call you with as little as two pair or trips."

You make a good point about the check on the turn. That fact, coupled with game theory, and the odds the guy actually has a spade, gives the other guy an easy call.

The odds the poster has a spade, baring mathematical incompetency, is about 30%, so if the poster would always bet he has an easy call based only on this. Given your point about checking the turn, I think the odds are less than 30% that the poster would have a spade.

According to game theory, the poster should bluff about 1 in 4 chances in this situation (that is, 1 for every 4 legitamate bets). In this case, the other guy should call about 2 in 3 times. However, if the poster is more likely than 1 in 4 to be bluffing (which I think is very likely the case), then the other guy should always call with any hand that can beat a bluff, meaning he wouldn't need as good a hand as two pair to call. A pair of aces would be enough.

This is a very interesting hand. It's easy to analyze this at leisure and say it's an easy call, but in real time (at least for me), it wouldn't be so easy to call without a spade.