Thin Thin Thin value bet?

[slavic]

UTG is a calling stations, calling station.

Party Poker 2/4 (10 handed)
slavic has 2/images/graemlins/spade.gif, J/images/graemlins/diamond.gif and is BB

UTG limps, Button folds, SB limps, slavic checks

Flop(3 SB): 5/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 4/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 2/images/graemlins/club.gif

SB checks, slavic bets, UTG calls, SB folds

Turn(2 1/2 BB): 5/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

slavic bets, UTG calls

River(4 1/2 BB): 8/images/graemlins/diamond.gif

slavic bets

[Bob T.]

Its not thin if you are ahead, and I bet you won this hand.

Your opponent probably couldn't let go of his AK, as in 'AK, it never wins for me, suited too'.

[SevenStuda]

Opponent shouldn't have AK w/o a raise. Well played, I like the aggressiveness.

[chesspain]

How many worse hands do you think UTG will call with on the river? Not many, unless you think he'll call with the busted spade draw or the Ax that missed the gutshot str8. In addition, he will not fold any better hand. Difficult for me to see the value of this bet.

Moreover, if you check the river, he might bet into you as a bluff more times than he will call your bet with nothing.

[slavic]

He may also not call with something. I figured him for dead nothing, but my hand wasn't much more than nothing. I bet wondering if I wanted to be called or not.

[chesspain]

Slavic,

He called the turn bet when the second five hit the board. What better hand could he have that he's going to lay down for one more bet--maybe 34?

We can disagree, but I still don't see the value in the river bet.

[Mike]

With a poor flop like this and BB a certified calling station, I like the bet. The miracle of genuine calling stations is you never know what they might be holding. With selective hand choices your hand is [hopefully] good more often than it isn't.

[Bob T.]

Opponent is a calling station. Calling stations don't raise preflop with AK. Unfortunately, they play a lot of hands that beat a pair of deuces the same way this hand was played.

[lil']

I like it. You know he doesn't have a 5. If he has a 4 or 8, good for him.

[slavic]

Other player folds. MHIG

[Joe Tall]

Looks like an over-card hunt.

I'd play it the same way.

Peace,
JT

[ElSapo]

Looks like an over-card hunt.
I'd play it the same way.

But you know he can't call on the end with just overcards. Frankly, I don't like the river bet. What can he possibly call with that J2 beats? Maybe he played a smaller suited 2s UTG? I think hoping to get called by ace-high is far too optimistic, and after the turn bet gets called I think the river gets called as well if UTG has a pair.

I know check-calling the end looks weak, but if you really think the deuces are the best hand then I actually don't see how he can bet it, and expect to get called by a worse hand. Check-calling may not feel right, but I think it's the only way to get an opponent's bet into the pot on the river, -and- have the deuces be good.

[lil']

But you know he can't call on the end with just overcards.
Sez who? Slavic said he was a champion calling station. If he hadn't given us this description, I would have said check it. It is a thin bet, that's for sure, but when your opponents suck you should make the thin bets more often and let them indulge in their suckyness.

[Joe Tall]

ElSapo,

I didn't notice the 2-spades. Therefore, over-card, or flush draw. When neither makes it, it's even a easier bet, especially when the board pairs the 5s.

[ QUOTE ]
Check-calling may not feel right, but I think it's the only way to get an opponent's bet into the pot on the river, -and- have the deuces be good.

[/ QUOTE ]

More often than not on a uncooridated rag-a$$ board like this, it will be checked through. This is why it's a 'value bet', be it as thin as it is or not.

Peace,
JT

[ElSapo]

More often than not on a uncooridated rag-a$$ board like this, it will be checked through. This is why it's a 'value bet', be it as thin as it is or not.

Maybe I don't understand this thinking then... I know it will probably be checked through - the great majority of the time - but I also don't think his opponent can call here with just ace-high.

I guess this is a frequency issue, and seems similar to a hand Vehn posted in the mid-stakes section (betting into a four-flush board, and folding to a raise, rather than check-calling).

How often will his opponent call with a worse hand, v. bet with a worse hand? (I'd guess the vast majority of times it either gets checked through or deuces bet and overcards fold).

If his opponent really will call down with something like KJ or AT, and the probability of that happening is greater than that of checking and having him bet, then a bet becomes correct. All this assumes, however, he doesn't have a better hand -- and if he is really a calling station, I think you have to account for the times he will indeed turn up a small pocket pair he played passively.

If you know he will call down with his overcards some percentage of the time, I guess this does become a value bet. But frankly, on a raggedy board like this and the BB keeps betting, I expect the other player to fold overcards every time.

Or call with pocket 3s.

[ElSapo]

Sez who? Slavic said he was a champion calling station.

I guess this is true, but man, he'd really have to be bad. A raggedy flop like this, the BB keeps betting... Can he call with AT or KJ or something? If he can, and will, then I guess the bet is right. But like I said to JT, I think it's definitely a frequency issue -- how much more often will he bet that worse hand v. how often will he call with that worse hand, and all this assuming the 2s are good...

I don't dispute the 2s are the best hand most of the time. Just that betting the 2s, v. checking, v. the times when they are not the best hand, makes this a check for me.

But as the title said, it is a ThinX3 value bet. That is thin, maybe it's just the bets this thin I can't find yet...

[slavic]

But as the title said, it is a ThinX3 value bet. That is thin, maybe it's just the bets this thin I can't find yet...

From the results, I couldn't find one either. He didn't call on the end.

[Joe Tall]

[ QUOTE ]
but I also don't think his opponent can call here with just ace-high.


[/ QUOTE ]

You also, player dependant, have to factor in the times when they will fold.

Clearly I think this is on of the reasons Slav placed such a bet in addition to is 'value bet'.

What you are saying is clear, but there are times like this that arrise when a 'Stuey' river bet can be made. I think this is one of them.

Peace,
JT

[Mike]

"Maybe I don't understand this thinking then... I know it will probably be checked through - the great majority of the time - but I also don't think his opponent can call here with just ace-high."

This is exactly why a bet is needed. What will the calling station be inclined to fold with at the river? Maybe he will fold 33? It's kind of a ratio process. One Big bet aqainst the pot, hoping for a fold, against losing to a better hand. Checking is the surest way to lose the hand so that leaves only one other option at the river to win the pot.

[ElSapo]

This is exactly why a bet is needed. What will the calling station be inclined to fold with at the river?

Only a non-paired hand, which was my initial point. I think if he called the turn with a pair, he is also calling the river.

Perhaps we have a different idea of a value-bet. You bet for value b/c you have the best hand and will be called, no? The post kind of assumes, and I agree, he has the best hand (though yes, there will be times when he doesn't).

My point was that this isn't a value bet because in my opinion, he wont ever be called by a worse hand.

However, it was subsequently pointed out that the opponent is supposed to be a huge calling station, and may very well call down with ace-high.

My point was that there may be a better chance of getting the opponent to bet a worse hand, rather than calling with a worse hand.

I don't think you have much chance of folding a better hand after he calls the turn. You will only fold worse hands.

[Bob T.]

Ok, last week, I said that it was OK, to bet an unimproved Ace some of the time, and I got called a retard /images/graemlins/grin.gif. A pair of deuces, is a little better, so maybe this time I will only be a dimwit.

I think that in this case, you have a fairly obvious value bet, EVEN if you are an underdog in this hand.

First, I don't think anyone is going to check and fold this deep in the hand. So it is a question of which play has more value, checking and calling, or betting, and folding to a raise. I think that if you bet and get called, (and I am pretty certain that you will get called with Ace high if that is your opponents holding, a significant portion of the time), will you win a higher percentage of those bets, than if you check, and call. I don't think that if you check, a player with high cards, is going to bluff as often as a player will call with those same cards, so I like betting better than calling. If you win a bet 25% of the time, when you are called, versus 15% when you call, you are 10% better off betting, even if you are behind.

Finally, especially with this hand, there is a lot of value in the fold, where you don't have to show down this dog. You really don't want them believing that your flop bets might be on bottom pair/ weak kicker, because that will make it much harder to steal small pots in the future.

If the opponent was different, say loose aggressive, and I know that he will bet the river nearly all of the time when checked to, then I like checking more often.

[Schneids]

I agree with El Sapo. It seems like your bet will never fold a better hand (que: calling station doing his job of keeping the table honest with ANY pair), and never be called by a worse. Hence, I would check and call a bet. The calling station may look at the board and see spades on it and decide Slavic was betting his spades that he missed and try to steal with a bet. Or just plain old try to steal without that thinkin process.

I prefer check/call.

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that in this case, you have a fairly obvious value bet, EVEN if you are an underdog in this hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

It can't be a value bet if he is an underdog. It may have value in a meta-game sort of way, which is what I think you are trying to say, but it's not a value bet.

[slavic]

I think making this bet wins the pot more often than checking and calling. The bet by it's very nature has value, it may be extremely thin value and may not make up for it's cost over time, but it has value.

In this case I think there is value in that Ace high may call, but there seems to be more value in that it gives my opponent the opportunity to fold. In either case I had determined that a bet was going in on the river, and I was uncertain if it was for pure value or pure bluff.

[Bob T.]

It can't be a value bet if he is an underdog.

I think it is, if you will make more money, by betting and being called, than you will by checking and calling. It is a value bet. In the scenario, that I outlined in the other post, you would gain 10% of a big bet, by betting instead of calling.

[BaronVonCP]

I'm definately on the Elsapo/chesspain side of this one.
If this isn't the time to try an induce a bluff...

In my experience, loose calling stations aren't likely to call without a pair on the river; and they aren't likely to fold with a pair on the river.

So if that is true, a bet is definately incorrect. But perhaps your experiences with loose calling stations is a bit different.

[Homer]

Reasons for checking:

1) There is a good chance that your opponent will check behind if he has a 4 or a better 2.

2) There is some chance that your opponent will take a stab at the pot with a hand with which he would not call (3x, Ax, busted flush draw, etc).

Reason for betting:

1) Your opponent will call with a worse hand that he would not have bet himself.

I think the reasons for checking outweigh the reason for betting.

-- Homer

[Inthacup]

It is a value bet. In the scenario, that I outlined in the other post, you would gain 10% of a big bet, by betting instead of calling

Bob, it's only a value bet in the scenario you described. You put a subjective list of percentages in your arguement. While it helped to prove your point, you can't follow up with things like "It is a value bet" based on the argument you made. All you've determined with your previous analysis is that it's a value bet within the scenario you described, which I find to be lacking.



(This isn't directed at Bob T, just in general)

I love value bets and I've certainly made my share of them. In this case, I think checking is best. Getting a better hand to fold just isn't gonna happen. IF he does have an Ace, I think he'll call the majority of the time. How often will he bet an Ace? I don't know. I don't have enough info in this type of calling station to know that. From the experience I've had in situations like this, I have seen quite a few river bets when checked to. If he has a hand like J10 or QJ, he certainly won't call, but there's a chance he'll bet. It's close, much closer than if the opponent was aggressive. If he's aggressive, it's a no brainer.

I don't mind showing this hand down. Most people at the table aren't going to remember it anyway. It's not like it's going to change UTG's habits. He's a calling station as is.


Cup

[slavic]

2) There is some chance that your opponent will take a stab at the pot with a hand with which he would not call (3x, Ax, busted flush draw, etc).

This is were, this player is a calling station comes in. He will not bet a hand that he is the least bit unsure of, but he will call just to keep em honest. He called down a Q high bluff and lost, so maybe he has learned a bit but I'm hard pressed to think that if checked to he would bet anything that doesn't beat me.

[Louie Landale]

Yup, pairs are for betting, especially against players willing to call down with less than J high. This is a no brainer bet against THIS player.

Two options present themselves after being called: pretend you were "bluffing" or to be very proud of your "two pair" or to be proud of your "J kicker". Or three options.

But I think you need to be MORE conserned about how this will look to the rest of the table. Will they fear you? Respect you? think you a maniac and never fold?

Is this what you want? Does it match your current strategy? Can you will you adjust? Can you outwit the opponents based on this?

- Louie

[ElSapo]

Yup, pairs are for betting, especially against players willing to call down with less than J high.

Who calls down with less than jack-high? Seriously, even a calling station can't call with ten-high. Do they? Can they? I mean, sure, they can, but...

...what are they hoping for, a busted 9-high something?

[Bob T.]

I suspect that the value of checking and calling, and betting and folding to a raise, are probably very close to even. It probably comes down to individual style.

All of these hands aren't played in a vacumn, and you have all of the hands that went before, that we don't see as posters, and also how you adjust to what has happened in the future. I would probably bet in this situation, but that might fit more with my style, while you probably check/call in this situation, and that probably is more consistant with your style. I am not sure that it makes a difference, and the fact that the hand gets played different ways, by different players is what makes the game both interesting, and tough.

[Nottom]

Calling stations don't need a hand to call! (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=smallholdem&Number=430413& Forum=smallholdem&Words=bet%20the%20river&Match=En tire%20Phrase&Searchpage=1&Limit=25&Old=1month&Mai n=430413&Search=true#Post430413)

[ElSapo]

Calling stations don't need a hand to call!

Yeah, I know... But at some point you have to assume a level of reason on the part of your opponent. Calling with ace-high is the right play sometimes. Calling with jack-high, or ten-high...?

I understand that it happens, for whatever reason, sometimes. But not often enough for me to try and value bet on this basis.

[Homer]

This is were, this player is a calling station comes in. He will not bet a hand that he is the least bit unsure of, but he will call just to keep em honest. He called down a Q high bluff and lost, so maybe he has learned a bit but I'm hard pressed to think that if checked to he would bet anything that doesn't beat me.

I'm not sure why everyone assumes that calling stations will never bluff the river when checked to when they have no other way to win.

That being said, if this particular calling station will never bluff and will often call down with Q high, well, I'm not sure why you're even asking the question.

-- Homer

[AceHigh]

Another possibility is the river goes check, check. If this guy is passive, and most calling station are, that might save you some bets.

[slavic]

That being said, if this particular calling station will never bluff and will often call down with Q high, well, I'm not sure why you're even asking the question.

Because I'm not sure if it was of any value here. Certainly there is folding equity to it, but I'm looking for opinions. It's one of those places were I believe a bet needs to go in on the river but I have no idea if it's good or not.

[slavic]

Louie -

You bring up a good point, I rarely care to show my marginal hands. I may have played them perfectly but that doesn't mean I want the table to see what I do with crap. Even in the blinds I seem to lose a lot of image when I nail a hand. Nobody is betting a pair of two's at this table. They will see me betting bottom pair, when I'm betting the best hand because this flop missed everyone. Interestingly, the same group would drive the betting with AKo and think it a good play.

So the next question is how important is image? Mason writes that it's not so important but I do like stealing the blinds when the opportunity presents itself. Of course on this table I'm willing to bet every other person is unaware. So image is likely nothing unless you make it blunt and obvious.

[Louie Landale]

Perhaps I misread it, but Hero said he paid off the river earlier with a hand that couldn't beat J-high. Unless this player is also a habitual bluffer, and I mean is almost a CINCH to bluff, betting any pair for value is a no-brainer, especially with the board paired (which reduces the number of cards he could have accidentally paired).

- Louie