Betting the river...

...is one of my weaknesses. That is, knowing when you should and when you shouldn't bet for value. These 3 hands came up last night, and I'm left, this morning, wondering whether or not I was correct in betting:


HAND #1

I have AKo in MP. Two EP limpers (UTG & UTG+1) and I raise. Button, big blind and limpers all call.


Flop is 5s Ac 8c. Checked to UTG+1 who bets. I raise, and only UTG+1 calls.


Turn: 3h. Check, bet, call.


River: 7s. Check, bet, call.


HAND #2

I have AKo in the BB. One MP limper. MP poster checks. Button calls, and I raise. Limper and Poster call. Button folds.


Flop: 4d Ad 4h. I bet, Limper folds, Poster calls.


Turn: 2c. Bet, call.


River: 2h. Bet, fold.


HAND #3

I have KK in the BB. 4 callers to me, and I raise. Everyone calls.


Flop: Ts 5h 2d. I bet and get two callers.


Turn: 7c. Bet, fold, call.


River: 7s. Bet, call.


Any and all comments appreciated.


Matt

Disclaimer here: I don't consider river play to be one of my stronger points, but I'll offer my opinions.


Hand 1: You've got top pair top kicker. Nobody has shown any strength. You have some possible straights, but they are pretty unlikely. They would all be 1 or 2 gap pocket cards, and gutshot or runner-runner draws. I'd bet this river without hesitation.


Hand 2: I don't like this river bet at all. You're only likely to be called (or raised) by a better hand. I don't usually bet rivers with 2 pair on board without the bigger full house.


Hand 3: This one's a little more borderline, but the pair on board makes a bet a little risky. Would your opponent hang in with a hand containing a 7 for runner-runner trips (or full house)? If so, don't bet.


It really helps in river play to know your opponent. In all three of these hands, your opponent would have to play some really bad starting hands and hang in with bad draws to beat you. In short, you have more to fear from a clueless player than from a good player.


I highly reccomend Slansky's "Theory of Poker" for river play.

Before discussing these hands, there is something about betting the river that you need to understand which is not discussed very often in books or articles. When your opponents see you winning pot after pot without having to show your hand, they become concerned that you may be stealing. This will increase their propensity to call you down on future hands just to keep you honest. So betting the river for value and not getting called has some intrinsic advantages because it helps you get paid off on future hands.


On Hand #1, betting the river is clear. You will get calls from worse aces or a guy who happens to have a pair and is hoping you were drawing.


On Hand #2, betting the river is right because you were not raised on the turn and you will get crying calls from worse aces.


On Hand #3, I like your river bet because a running pair helps your hand negating any two pair hands that someone may have flopped. I would bet every time. You will get calls from top pair and overpair type hands or just someone who wants to look you up with a pair hoping you have A-K.


I like all your plays.

Good post. I often have the same questions. I've already looked at the other responses, but I'll give you what my flawed advice would have been. Hand #1 is an easy bet, Hand #2 I would check and call a bet. My hope would be to induce a bluff here. Hand #3 I bet. I played a similar hand 4 sessions ago. I raised with KK pre-flop, the flop came J-10-3 and an EP player bet into me. I guessed that he had hit two pair and re-raised. He went into check-call mode. I bet the turn and when the river paired the 3 I bet again. He called down with J-10, I win with a minor suckout.


So I guess my flawed thinking was on hand #2. It seems like a tough hand to bet--better hands will call or raise and worse hands will fold. Maybe I'm not all that convinced that my thinking on this is flawed.

ripdog,


I like Matt's play on hand 2, and I don't think it is close.


In hand #2, Matt is the raiser. If he bets the whole way and checks the river, I don't see a bluff coming in a LL game. In a mid-limit game, I could see someone trying to bluff a full house because Matt didn't bet. However, he didn't mention that his opponents were hyper-aggressive or tricky.


I don't think you fear getting raised when you have been getting called the whole way. No one else claims to have anything. If it were a really tricky opponent, I might even welcome a raise.


No matter what you do, your weak passive opponent pays you zero on the river here. I bet with a hope of getting called by a bad ace. He calls against my KK in this spot, so he gets to call my AK. I think that Jim's point about winning a hand w/o showing is a great one.


Finally, Lee Jones talks about letting people know that it will be expensive to get to the river while he is in the pot. On all three hands, Matt had the goods and followed through. I think that this leads to a great table image. If they aren't really likely to bluff, let them know that they'll have to pay on the river to see your cards.


Well played on all three.


- Doug

Thanks for your input. I tend to play on the passive side on the river. I usually push top pair/top kicker hard until the river starts looking scary. Looking at the fact that the two pair on board is 2's and 4's, I would probably bet the river here as well. If the two pair were higher, say 9's and 10s, do you check and call now? I probably would, but I'd second guess myself about being weak-tight for the next month.

I think Jim made a really good point, one which I hadn't considered at the time: the fact that I wasn't raised on the turn. That would seem to indicate that my opponent didn't have a 4 (or, in ripdog's example, a 9). And, hell, if someone actually stuck around to hit runner-runner trips with a 2 or a 10 then they're welcome to the extra bet. /images/smile.gif


Thanks for the feedback, guys.


Matt

On Hand #2, I don't think trying to induce a bluff is a good idea. Players will make crying calls at the river with a lot more hands than they will make bluffs, especially in low limit games. You announced a big hand when you raised preflop out of your big blind and kept charging all the way. No one will be fooled by you suddenly checking on the river when a blank arrives. I guy with a worse ace will simply check it down and hope his hand is good.

Sorry for the slow response, I was busy being Suburban Yard Guy over the weekend.


I think that the size of the two pair does make a difference. However, no one else showed any aggression during the hand. I expect to get called by worse hands much more often than I would expect get check-raised (and lose).


Once the pair gets bigger, it becomes player dependent. There are people in my games who I would expect to flat call, even with a full house. There are people who would check-raise as a bluff. If the pairs are close, there are straight draws that know the only way they can win is to knock you out. I'm more careful here, but the guy had to hit a 2-outer if he improved on the river. I bet unless I have a good reason not to.


I'm not sure that checking and calling deserves the weak-tight label. However, I think there is value in letting people know that they rarely get a free showdown against me. In the long run, it is expensive to passively call me down with a second place hand because I don't give a free river. This compounds the mistakes that a calling station makes against me.


Now I'll have to pay attention to how often I get check-raised on the river...


- Doug