I closed my eyes and called.....

[Gomez22]

UB $.50 NLHE - 10 handed

Button(ME - $62.10)
BB($84.25)

BB played very aggressively and was apt to push hard with any draw, and anytime she felt weakness, hence my play here.....

I'm button with 7 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif 7 /images/graemlins/club.gif

It's folded to me, I raise to $3.00, SB folds, BB calls.

FLOP($6.25): 6 /images/graemlins/heart.gif K /images/graemlins/heart.gif 2 /images/graemlins/spade.gif

SB checks, I bet $8.00, SB calls.

TURN($22.25): 3 /images/graemlins/club.gif

SB checks, I check.

RIVER($22.25): 5 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

SB checks, I bet $10.00, SB raises to $25.00, I call....

Thoughts?

RESULTS IN WHITE BELOW:

<font color="white"> SB had Qh Jh... MHIG </font>

[SevenStuda]

You're gonna have to open your eyes to get the full flavor of this post....... You Blow! What a weak call. You're welcome in any game I ever play in.

[Acesover8s]

[ QUOTE ]
You're gonna have to open your eyes to get the full flavor of this post....... You Blow! What a weak call. You're welcome in any game I ever play in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another nominee for the "I'm a total douche" club. Seriously, guys, I'll try to get the T-shirts printed up in time for the series.

[cornell2005]

absolutly check through on river. if you get called you most likely lose, and you stil might lose to a weaker hand if he raises you back and you fold. no benefit for this bet, and alot of negatives

[ML4L]

Hey Gomez,

What were you hoping to accomplish with your river bet?

ML4L

[Gomez22]

[ QUOTE ]
What were you hoping to accomplish with your river bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought I had the best hand here.....

No one else ever takes a chance in a situation like this with a player that's over-aggressive at times?

[Gomez22]

[ QUOTE ]
Another nominee for the "I'm a total douche" club. Seriously, guys, I'll try to get the T-shirts printed up in time for the series.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about this don't I get?

[cornell2005]

it was directed at the guy that replied to you

[cornell2005]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What were you hoping to accomplish with your river bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought I had the best hand here.....

No one else ever takes a chance in a situation like this with a player that's over-aggressive at times?

[/ QUOTE ]

yea but in this case you cant fold out any hands that beat yours with your bet, they will call if they can beat you and will fold when they cant. so its a break even/lose situation i think

if he was super aggressive id rather check raise him here than bet out small

[ML4L]

[ QUOTE ]
I thought I had the best hand here.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Gomez,

Thinking that you have the best hand is NOT the criteria on which you should base your decision of whether or not to bet the river. It is what percentage of the time that you will have the best hand WHEN CALLED. As cornell pointed out, you generally will only be called by a better hand there, so a bet for value is not correct. Additionally, you will not fold out a better hand, so a bluff is not correct either.

If your plan was to bet just so as to induce a check-raise bluff, I don't like it. If a player is going to bluff, he is more likely to lead out than to check, hoping that you bet, so he can then bluff. You checked the turn; why would he think that you would bet the river? And, had this person not screwed up by raising such a small amount, would you still have called? Given the exact situation and your read, I suppose your call was fine. But, next time, check behind on the river; there will be plenty more bluffs that you can catch...

ML4L

[tdomeski]

[ QUOTE ]
Thinking that you have the best hand is NOT the criteria on which you should base your decision of whether or not to bet the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's wrong. That should not be your criteria on how much you should bet on the river.

[ML4L]

[tdomeski]

Let me clarify. . .taking your quote literraly you are saying that determining whether or not you are ahead on the river should not be a criteria of whether or not you should bet the river. . I think you either mixed up your words or are confused. If you think you are ahead you have to bet the river. The idea of people only calling when they beat you refers to bet sizes. If you bet $80 into a $5 pot with the second best hand you are probably only going to be called by a better hand. If you think you are ahead why would you not bet the river? Because you are only going to be called by better hands? That really doesn't make any sense. . .but I think we are at the point of semantics.

[Gomez22]

[ QUOTE ]
yea but in this case you cant fold out any hands that beat yours with your bet, they will call if they can beat you and will fold when they cant. so its a break even/lose situation i think

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense here, because you guys have all helped me out, but isn't the river raise here by SB..... which in actuality should be BB..... sort of an obvious bluff? That was kinda how I read it at the time... I think that if I had to put a % on it, I'd say I was 80% sure this raise was a bluff, else why not bet out on the turn?

Like I said, this player was almost maniacal, and the only 2 cards I was really in fear of on the river would be either a king or a 4. If this player had a hand, don't you think they'd bet the turn, or at least after seeing me check the turn through, bet the river?

Maybe I'm not grasping something here, but a lead on the river by BB would have carried more weight to me than a raise in the same spot.

BTW - I picked off 3 more of her bluffs after this hand for $30 more in total. I didn't mention this in my original post because I only wanted info that I knew at the time the hand was played to be relavent to the hand in question.

[Gomez22]

[ QUOTE ]
Thinking that you have the best hand is NOT the criteria on which you should base your decision of whether or not to bet the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

I kinda thought that any time you think you have the best hand, you should bet, because if you are called by a worse hand, you're getting VALUE there... hence, a value bet. In this case, I plain ole thought I was good here.

SO... just out of curiosity.... what kind of bet did I make on the river here?

I don't really like to bet huge on the river no matter the hand because I want to get value for my hands. When I started playing NL, I overbet too much on the river and was NEVER getting paid off when I had the best hand. Now, sometimes I feel like I'm not betting enough on the river, but then I think that I'm at least getting SOME value for my hands while doing this. See my hand about QQ for an example of my underbetting the river (and turn, for that matter)....

QQ Hand (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&amp;Number=588905&amp;page=1&amp;view=ex panded&amp;sb=5&amp;o=14&amp;fpart=1)

[Gomez22]

When YOUR first book comes out, let me know... I'm sure "How to be an [censored] in More Ways than One" is sure to make the New York Times best seller biographical list.

Until then, please don't quit your day job at the sperm bank.. I'm sure they can overlook that you drink on the job.

Regards,

Gomez

[ML4L]

Hey t,

You are correct that the concept is easier to grasp when considering pot overbets. But, it applies to ALL bets on the river where you have no chance of causing a better hand to fold, thus meaning that the bet has zero "bluff" equity. If Gomez bet $2 on the river, if he loses more than 50% of the time THAT THE BET IS CALLED, it was a bad bet. And that doesn't even take the possibility of being check-raised into account; it should be more than 50%.

Look at it this way. If you were SB in this hand, what hands would you call a bet on the river with? Probably not any hands that don't beat 77... Would you call a minimum with a bet with a pair of sixes? Yeah, maybe, OK. But, as mentioned above, making severe underbets on the river reopens the betting, and it's just a matter of time before someone check-raises you off your hand, which might have been able to win a showdown, thus costing you the entire pot. Your minimum bet is gonna have to be called a whole bunch of times to make up for having to fold a winner even once.

This is HPFAP/TOP type stuff...

ML4L

[ML4L]

Hey Gomez,

With regards to the definition of a "value bet," read my latest post on this thread responding to tdomeski. Hopefully that will clarify what I was trying to say...

In general, habitually underbetting the pot prevents you from getting maximum value from your hands. And, underbetting the pot on the flop/turn can give opponents the proper odds to draw to a lot of "crazy" hands...

Look at it like this. On the QQ hand, let's say that you get to play the river as "you" and then you swap places with your opponent and have to play as him. How much are you going to call? More than $5 probably... In the long run, everyone is going to be in the exact same situations the exact same number of times, and it's how much you win/lose given a particular situation that will determine your win rate. When you don't make as much as you could have on your winners, you're throwing money away. Yeah, it's frustrating to have a monster and make a decent sized bet, only to see your opponent fold. But, your goal isn't to maximize the number of times your opponent calls you on the river when you have the nuts. Your goal is to make money.

Hope that wasn't too bad of a rant. Good luck.

ML4L

[Gomez22]

[ QUOTE ]
But, your goal isn't to maximize the number of times your opponent calls you on the river when you have the nuts. Your goal is to make money.


[/ QUOTE ]

SO in the situations where you feel/know you have the best ahnd and make a value bet, you enter yet another aspect of reading opponents..... the one which gives you an idea of how much they will call....

Am I right here?

The pot was $30 on the river... He'd probably have called $10 here.. MAYBE $15. But I was SURE he'd call $5. That's why I went with $5.00.

Funny how when you look back on certain hands you can see the mistakes you made on them when you've had time to think about it, but until that moment of enlightenment hits you, you really can't be sure of what's what. Also, your mindset 12 hours after playing a hand isn't nearly the same as it is when playing it - that's something I think I need to adjust to somewhat.

Thanks for the replies...

'Mez

[ML4L]

[ QUOTE ]
SO in the situations where you feel/know you have the best ahnd and make a value bet, you enter yet another aspect of reading opponents..... the one which gives you an idea of how much they will call....

Am I right here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, look at it like this. Let's say you have the nuts, your opponent has checked, and your only consideration is how much money to get out of him. The equity in the bet is the dollar amount multiplied by the probability that he will call. So, if there is a 100% chance that he will call $5 and a 60% chance that he will call $10, you bet $10, because

(1.00 * $5) &lt; (0.60 * $10)

Ideally you find the exact dollar amount that maximizes that equation, but that isn't realistic. You just want to be as close as possible.

Also, do you now understand the idea that you only bet the river for value when you think that worse hands WILL CALL?

ML4L

[CrisBrown]

Hi ML,

I'll add one more factor to consider in deciding how to bet you've hit a probable best hand: how much do you need to justify your earlier call(s)? A lot of the time, NL play is about implied odds, that is, making a seemingly -EV call (based on current pot odds) because you expect to get paid off by the extra money your opponent will put into the pot if you hit your hand. That means you must consider the future bets before you make the current call.

Pre-Flop Example: You have a small pair, and your opponent has made a 4xBB pre-flop raise from EP. Your read is that this player probably has a big pair. You need to spike a set to win the pot, and you've already decided that if you don't flop the set, you're not going to continue with the hand. The odds to flop a set are 1:8, so if you do flop that set, you'll have to get at least another 28xBB of his money in the pot when you hit.

If you know you won't do that -- because the opponent doesn't have 28xBB in his stack, or because you know he'll lay down a big pair before he'll pay off 28xBB -- then you should muck pre-flop. By contrast, if you know your opponent will "marry" his big pair, and his stack is more than 28xBB, then you should call, and play to get at least 28xBB of his money in the pot over the flop, turn, and river.

Turn-River Example: You're on a flush draw, and there's 20xBB in the pot at the turn. Your opponent bets 10xBB. You're getting only 3:1 current odds on this call, and you are 1:5 to hit the flush at the river. If you call, and hit, you'll have to get at least 20xBB of his money in the pot on the river, or you haven't paid off the odds for your turn call.

If you estimate that, if the third suited card hits, he'll call 80% of the time for 20xBB, 75% of the time for 25xBB, and 40% of the time for 40xBB, then you should muck at the turn, because he's not going to pay you off often enough to justify the turn call. If you figure he'll call 95% of the time for 20xBB, 80% of the time for 25xBB, and 60% of the time for 40xBB, then you call, intending to bet 40xBB if you hit, as that bet gives you the best average payoff (24xBB).

Obviously, you can't be this precise in estimating your opponent's call percentages. But you have to be thinking ahead at every betting round, and you can probably get at least some idea of whether your opponents will pay off your draw odds. If they won't, you just don't call.

Cris

[Guy McSucker]

Absolutely check the river here. Your hand may well be good. No worse hand will call, so there's no reason to bet. A tricky player may raise you on a bluff: a reason to check. So check.

ML4L is bang on here. If you want another reference, check out the chapter entitled "Heads up on the river" (I think) in Sklansky's "Theory of Poker". This is one of the most clear cut situations in poker.

Guy.

[cornell2005]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
yea but in this case you cant fold out any hands that beat yours with your bet, they will call if they can beat you and will fold when they cant. so its a break even/lose situation i think

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense here, because you guys have all helped me out, but isn't the river raise here by SB..... which in actuality should be BB..... sort of an obvious bluff? That was kinda how I read it at the time... I think that if I had to put a % on it, I'd say I was 80% sure this raise was a bluff, else why not bet out on the turn?

Like I said, this player was almost maniacal, and the only 2 cards I was really in fear of on the river would be either a king or a 4. If this player had a hand, don't you think they'd bet the turn, or at least after seeing me check the turn through, bet the river?

Maybe I'm not grasping something here, but a lead on the river by BB would have carried more weight to me than a raise in the same spot.

[/ QUOTE ]

i think this isnt correct in my opinion. in online poker, a re-raise always holds more weight to me than a lead out. (even in situations like this when its a small lead out bet, but by less in this case of course) however, in professional type poker, i would agree that a re-raise could likely be a bluff more often.
i think if you trust bet-outs a little less and trust re-raises a little more, you may see some increased returns.

i guess lets just put it this way: when im bluffing, i rarely bluff with nothing on the river by reraising him. your basically counting on 2 things: that he is stone cold bluffing with his initial bet out, and that he is smart enough to lay down a "potential winning hand" to your raise. if both these things dont happen, then your bluff wont work. the real problem here in online poker is satisying the second criteria. people hate to fold potential winning hands after they just put money in the pot, so they will call more often, and your bluff wont work as well. plus you will be up against people that wernt bluffing with their bet like 70 percent of the time, so almost everytime they will call you and you lose. so you might get a call overall like 85 percent of the time when you reraise.

this might be a bit confusing, i know i have a point in there but it might be pretty convoluted. i think the realizations in this thread might make you an even better player. good luck

by the way, why do you play on UB so much? you ever try the other sites?

[Gomez22]

[ QUOTE ]
by the way, why do you play on UB so much? you ever try the other sites?

[/ QUOTE ]

A couple of reasons...

1. I have just under $100 in bonuses there STILL to work off.

2. I like the format/software

3. Support has been really good to me

4. I've had the most success there in the NL ring games so far.

That about does it, I guess...


As far as other sites, I have accounts on Empire, Party(no money there right now), Paradise, Stars, TGC, True(no money there)...

I've only played NL at Empire &amp; Paradise, and to me, the variance at both Paradise and Empire is much greater than at UB. Paradise and Empire players are soooo bad and loose, that it's hrad for me to get any reliable reads on players there. At UB, things seem more "readable" and I feel more comfortable there with play in NL situations. Of course, I realize I could be hitting a down-peak in my EV at Empire &amp; Paradise, but at least until I get my bonus cleared at UB, that's where probably 60% of my NL play is at.
'Mez