who pays off here?

4-8 at the Bellagio and I'm on the button with KK


2 limpers to me and I raise. BB calls as do both limpers


Flop KQT rainbow- check to me, I bet. Only late limper (LL)calls. He seemed to be a sensable, solid player.


turn 8 (no flushes possible) He checks, I bet, he calls.


river J- he bets, I muck.

You cannot routinely fold in this spot heads up against a "solid" player since he will take lots of shots at you. So you can fold against the conservative predictable croud but pretty much need to pay off everybody else most of the time.


This is different than if 4 of you took the river card indicating that someone almost surely has an Ace.


- Louie

I saw this post and was hoping you, Jim or Rick would get into a little of what the LL could possibly have for his call, and what LL might conceivably assign to our hero.


Give our hero an ace, not unlikely, and LL is hanging around for half the pot if a jack comes. If our hero doesn't have an ace then a set, top two pair or top pair with an open ender is quite likely. Give LL an unraised JJ and even when his set comes it has to be hard to find a bet into that board given the preflop raise.

What could a "sensable solid player" have in this situation? He does not have pot odds to draw solely for an inside straight on the flop or the turn, especially considering that there is a decent chance that our hero has an Ace. It is possible that he flopped a straight, but then you would expect a solid player to raise on the flop or the turn.


So, if it is really a solid player who will not chase when pot odds are not there, the only hands that he could have that should worry you are AA, AK, AQ, or AT, all of which seem like raising hands preflop from late position with one limper (LL did not raise preflop).


I think the chances are too great that he took a shot at you on the river not to pay him off.

i tend to pay off here. i rationalize that he might have had say a jack and a pair, and made two pair on the river. so he bets so he gets paid off if you had just one pair and wouldnt bet. and he figures he will call anyway so why not bet. this is a common way of thinking and not incorrect. with what i counted in the pot you only have to have the winner about one time in nine to break even with calling. not even counting what about if you find out later that he was really a cronic bluffer.

i admit it was a tough laydown, (headsup and all) and maybe wrong.But concidering all the agression I showed playing the hand, with me showing NO signs of folding on the river and just as likely raising, does the theory "If they know you are going to call, they're not bluffing" come into play here at all?


when he bet i was 100% sure he had the nuts but he did'nt want to miss a bet if I had no ace and checked it thru. guess I showed him (heh)


hillbilly- why do i torture myself?

if you are 100% sure, then you should surely fold as long as you are 100% sure your sure.