A good check on the river?

[SpaceAce]

This happened at a PartyPoker $2-$4 game. That's small stakes and not micro, right?

I get 44 in the big blind. A couple of limpers to me and I check. The flop is 2Q7 rainbow. The action is checked around and the turn is another Queen, completing the rainbow. Now, unless somebody slow played a set and just made Quads, that Queen is a total blank as far as I am concerned. I bet and get one caller. She's been at the table with me for about three hours and she is a bit of a calling station. My notes on her say, "Can be holding any piece of the board or marginal hand when calling but if she's raising, she's strong," and, "Will chase flushed if she flops one of her suit". The river is a nine and I decide this is a good place to check/call. Here is my reasoning:

If she does not have me beat, she will probably fold to a bet but checking may induce a bluff (this was my main reason for checking).
I won't get more than one bet out of her unless she can beat fours.
If she can beat fours, there is a 0% chance of me folding her out of the pot.

So the way I see it, there is just about 0 value in betting. Who likes the check/call here and what do you think the result was?

SpaceAce

[NaobisDad]

It's unlikely she's holding a Q. But the only card you can beat is a 2, and I haven't completely ruled out a seven here (depending on what kind of player she is).

I'd bet out here, because I think she'd call with a seven, and raise with more (i think it unlikely for someone to bluffraise here, so I can safely fold). So it costs me one bet.

But if I check, and she bets I would probably have to fold, which would cost me the pot (small, but i would've liked to know exactly how small).

[sthief09]

I highly doubt she's bet a 7. She would only bet a queen (which I highly doubt she has), a PP higher than 9, or overcards. If you bet, any PP higher than yours will call (you said she's a calling station), but if you check and she bets I'd say you win the pot.

Your logic makes a lot of sense.

[SpaceAce]

[ QUOTE ]
It's unlikely she's holding a Q. But the only card you can beat is a 2, and I haven't completely ruled out a seven here (depending on what kind of player she is).

I'd bet out here, because I think she'd call with a seven, and raise with more (i think it unlikely for someone to bluffraise here, so I can safely fold). So it costs me one bet.

But if I check, and she bets I would probably have to fold, which would cost me the pot (small, but i would've liked to know exactly how small).

[/ QUOTE ]

The pot was fairly small but several of us had seen the flop so there was enough that I was planning to call if she bet. I figured if I bet, she'd fold anything I could beat, call with sevens which beat me and raise if she had a big hand or had rivered something like two pair. I figured a check gets me either a free or one-bet showdown with the one bet having a fair chance at being a bluff. That was my reasoning, anyway.

You're right about safely folding to a raise but I had juuuust enough faith in my fours to want to see a showdown instead having to fold for the same one bet that I could pay to see her cards by checking. Frankly, I would have been happy if she checked it down. I wasn't as worried about dqueezing an extra bet out of my pair as I was about whether my pair was even good.

SpaceAce

[SpaceAce]

[ QUOTE ]
I highly doubt she's bet a 7. She would only bet a queen (which I highly doubt she has), a PP higher than 9, or overcards. If you bet, any PP higher than yours will call (you said she's a calling station), but if you check and she bets I'd say you win the pot.

Your logic makes a lot of sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi, thanks for the reply. I didn't think a seven was too unlikely because she is not terribly selective with her starting hands but, like you, I thought I was safe from a Queen or a biggish pocket pair. I had her on the seven or nothing.

SpaceAce

[SpaceAce]

Oh, the results: she turned over A5o, no pair.

SpaceAce