Blind vs. Blind

30-60. Everyone folds. Small blind, who I haven't played with before, but who seems tight/aggressive and is waiting for a seat in bigger games, raises. I call with Kc-Qs offsuit.


Flop is Kh-Qd-3h. He bets; I raise; he reraises. I call.


Turn is an off-suit 7. He bets; I raise; he calls.


River is an A, no flush possible. I bet; he folds.


I spoke about this hand to a friend who said he felt my bet on the river was ill-advised. What do you guys think (about that or the other streets)?

I think that given that he checked to you on the river, a bet is in order.

Here's one where you perhaps ought to have stopped your narrative at "the river was an Ace...what should I do?"


Against an unknown opponent, I would bet (given that he checked). Against many others, I simply could not count on them to call my turn raise with anything other than AK,AQ,JT and possibly KJ/AJ. Of course, I lose to most of those hands at the river (I think...too lazy to do the Bayesian bit there).


What makes the bet particularly difficult at the river is the fact that the flop went 3 bets and the turn 2 bets (btw, nice "fast slowplay" on the flop). Clearly, the guy must know that you have got a very good hand, yet, he calls the turn...


Anyway, I bet the river until the guy shows me that he is capable of playing good poker.

i like the way you played the whole hand. river is the only real decision. i think i bet until i see this guy show me tricky check raises. i'd bet and hold my breath.

Thinking situationally, this is a case of bet-raise-call on the turn, followed by a scare card on the river. The routine "good" play from the first player is to bet out when he makes his hand on the river because raising the turn and checking the river is such a routine play these days. I can't imagine him going for a check-raise on the river, so I'd bet after he checked.


Tommy

This was my thinking. Since the Ace would be a scare card to me, who bet with K-Q on the board, I felt he would have bet his hand if the Ace helped him.


My friend asked me what hands I put him on with which he would call. I said K-J or K-T. He said a good player wouldn't call with those hands because the worst thing he could put you on was better than either or those. Even if he felt I was taking a shot on the turn with J-T or A-Q, the Ace would then scare him into not calling.


My thinking was, one-on-one, A) he might think, who knows, I could have anything; and B) he might call for the size of the pot.

Yeah, in retrospect it might have been more interesting if I said "an Ace comes on the river and he bets. Now what?" (I think I'd have to fold.)

I agree with Tommy, if the ace had improved SB's hand he probably would have bet it. I also agree with your friend that a good player probably won't call your bet unless you are beat. Pretty much the only hands SB can have after calling the turn are AA AQh AJh or ATh (maybe Axh or JTh if he is really aggressive preflop), unless he made a mistake by calling with a king -- he was getting 8:1 and would have to figure he only has 3 outs to hit his kicker, 5 outs if you have AA, or zero outs if you have a set. Given the river action, he must have made a decent fold with AJh or ATh.


My first reaction (and the play I would make at the table) was that you should bet the river as you did, since he probably hasn't improved (for the reasons Tommy gave) and may make a crying call. On further reflection though, I think the real reason not to bet is that, even if the ace doesn't improve him, it makes him unable to crying call with kings unless he is an awful player. Given his inability to call with kings, he would have to be at least twice as likely to call you with aces as to check raise you with a better hand, in order for your bet to be correct. If you will fold to a check raise, then you still need him to crying call with aces more often than he will check raise with a better hand, which I simply don't think is the case here -- he should be very unlikely to call with just aces since he can only read you for a set, straight, or two pair after the ace comes on the end.


Basically I think it boils down to this: if you bet you are hoping he will make a mistake by calling (since he can't call correctly with a worse hand) more often than he will try to trap you with a better hand. So if he really is a good player, you shouldn't bet since he won't make this mistake, but he might try to trap you.


And, the definitive results-oriented answer is (since he probably correctly folded an ace): DON'T BET! /images/smile.gif

First of all, I don't think you could fold if he bet out on the river. You're getting 10 to 1. Good players will bet the river headsup whenever a scare card hits if they were going to call anyway, just for the chance that you might make that mistake.


Your bet on the river is sketchy not just for the chance that he'll 3-bet you with AK or AA, like the others have said. But also because he might just call you with AQ or A7h. I see some situations where betting costs you two big bets, some where it costs you one, and very few when it gains you one.


Although him calling the turn might suggest he'll call the river with with a king. I'd probably check it down. But I do tend to miss some of the thinner value bets on the river.

"My friend asked me what hands I put him on with which he would call."


I don't think it much matters. Give 'em some rope. The "good player" thing is overrated. One thing good players do is make really funky calls on the river.


Tommy

tommy makes a very good point. alot of good players will still make very marginal calls in certain situations like this one when they don't have to be right very often to show a profit from it. if your opponent knows you to have any deception in your game at all they will call most of the time in heads up situation.

bob,


he can muck for checkraise on the river,costs the same as if sb bets out, which I would also call without too much thought,pot's too big


good luck


Mike