Bad river card saves me a bet?

10-20 Hold'em.


I look down in my small blind to see AhKh. Loose players from early position (EP) and middle position (MP) limp. EP has pretty low standards preflop and chases too much after the flop, but is an otherwise OK player. MP is an ultra loose any two will do player who has been destroying the game for the last hour or so. A loose aggressive and tricky player (LAP) raises from 3 off the button, and another loose aggressive player on the button calls. I make it 3 bets, the BB folds, and all call.


The flop comes Kc Js Tc. I bet, EP and MP call, LAP raises, button folds, I reraise, EP calls, MP folds, LAP calls. LAP would make this raise with a Q or a flush draw, as well as any hands that beat mine. He tends to play a lot more carefully against me (or any other tight, solid players), and is a little too quick to put me on big hands when I show a lot of aggression. When he does play back at me he usually has a strong draw or a decent hand.


The turn comes 7d. I bet, all call.


The river brings the Jc. Checked to LAP, who bets. I think for a moment and fold, EP folds. I figure if LAP hasn't made a flush, he had me beat already, plus EP would sometimes go for a check raise here if she had made a hand and thought LAP would bet. Anyone think this is a bad laydown?

Coilean,


I don't want to say that it's a bad fold....but I probably call with so much money in the pot, and obviously muck if EP then check-raises(and LAP calls or raises, otherwise I got myself in another tough spot). I've kind of got this motto (or did I adopt it from someone else?) that paying people off in limit HE is sometimes "a necessary evil." The most reasonable hand that you can beat is K-Q, would LAP bet this hand on the river once you show weakness? Could he bet K-10 or pray to "steal" (or bet for value???) with Q-Q? If the answer to these questions is even "maybe" then I'm callin'.


JMHO,


Mike

Usually LAP would check a hand with some showdown value (such as the hands you mentioned), and only bet a made hand or a busted draw here. The reason I folded here was that I couldn't really find a reasonable busted hand for him to bet, so it seemed like he had to have a hand.

Would he consider Q-Q a "busted draw" in this spot? I sure would, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to "bluff" with it on the end of this hand.

I think you have to call here. The pot is way to big to be making big laydowns on the river. And if this player knows you like you say. Is there a chance that he may bet becuase he knows you make big laydowns? Your fold doesn't have to be wrong very often in a pot this size for it to be a huge error. And your call doesn't have to win very often to make it right. I have a tendancy to call way too much on the river. But when i talk to other pros about it they say its not a big deal calling to much on the river. It doesn't cost you much in the long run. Not near as much as it costs you if you make alot of big laydowns and lose all those bets that would have been yours.

What interests me is your thinking when you checked the river because this is a dicey spot and one I struggle with.


Let's say the river had been an offsuit jack, or a non-jack club. Both of those cards spell potential trouble, but in both of those cases I tend to bet out on the river. Bad play? I dunno.


Even with the jack of clubs coming on the river, I might have bet out because it'd take one helluva big hand to raise on the river, and I could safely fold top pair. My worry is that with a double-scare card coming, a check by me might invite a bluff (that is, a 'bluff' because I have a better hand, but it might feel like a close-shave value bet from his vantage) from a player who had already appropriated one bet to call on the river.


And if I check the river, my typical thinking at that moment is that I will of course fold if I face two bets, but that I'll auto-pilot pay off one bet, and in that case, the standard teaching "If planning to call, bet" kicks in, so I bet out.


Good post and good hand to think about.


Tommy

Tommy,


Good point about betting, a hand worth a call is often worth a bet. However, do you think it's worth risking being bluff-raised(I know, pretty unlikely, I just can't help my thinking of this sh-t, it's a wonder that I'm ever able to "act" without minutes of thought /images/smile.gif ), when you'll likely now fold, in a pot this big?


Just askin',


Mike

Tommy,


I like this river bet a lot. Colian's opponents can't discount trip kings and it would take a brave player indeed to bluff raise here. It gains calls from QQ and KQ that probably would not bet. And AJ or QJ or the flush probably won't raise, but you surely need to call a single bet if you check.


Regards,


Rick

"the standard teaching "If planning to call, bet" kicks in, so I bet out."


I'm not sure if this standard applies to the river. What I remember from HPFAP concerns the flop in the context of a semi-bluff. Having said this, I often prefer to bet when in doubt. But again this is usually before the river.


In this case Coilean 3-bet pre-flop, 3-bet the flop, and bet the turn. I agree that only a monster is likely to raise here, but I'm not sure a bluff is very likely here given Coilean's pre-river action.


I'm not sure whether I agree with Rick, that a bet will get calls from KQ and QQ who wouldn't have bet, or if a check is more likely to get bets from KQ and QQ who wouldn't have called my bet. One thing I do agree with: good post and hand to think about.


I think I probably would have check-folded too.

Given that Coilean checked on the river, I think that he has to make a cyring call. Checking invites complications (such as thin value bets), and I think that his hand is too strong to lay down with so many bets in the pot. (Folding is of course correct if it were two bets cold).


Tommy, you mentioned the general idea that it's better to bet if you're going to call anyway. I think that this idea applies more strongly to rounds other than the last round. The main reason that betting is preferable to calling is that betting gives a stronger hand the chance to lay down (or a hand with outs to beat you a chance to lay down). I don't think that a bet in this spot will make a better hand lay down, and hands that are worse have no chance of improvement.


-Dan

But Daniel can't you see QQ or KQ calling but checking if there is no bet? I think this board and betting sequence has to be scary to the players acting after Colian. If he checks he announces he is not full and he may not only face a bluff bet but a bet and a raise. If he bets they can't discount two kings in his hand and if they do raise Colian is almost certainly beat.


Regards,


Rick

Rick,


You are implying that I said that I would check on the river. I never said that. I said:


1) Given that he checked, I would have called a single bet.


2) The usual "bet if you plan to call" logic does not fully apply when it is the final round we are talking about.


-Dan

I agree with you completely Rick.


Coilean has a board that will prevent him from getting raised even if the other fella hit the nut flush. The chances of inducing a bluff which he can snap off are much much smaller then the chances of the other fella calling a bet with a hand that he himself would not bet with. I would therefore bet.


Having checked and with the other guy betting, the chances are extremely small that the other guy is bluffing. Coilean may not even have a call from a pots odds standpoint. Nevertheless, for reasons already discussed in Tommy's "fruit plate" thread (and because the cocktail waitress in my casino is a hottie), I would pay him off.

Me: "the standard teaching of 'if planning to call, bet out' ..."


Andy: "I'm not sure if this standard applies to the river."


Daniel said the same thing, and now I'm confused because I really thought this concept applied ONLY to the river. My source is not HFAP so maybe we're talking about two faces of one idea, or two different ideas that share a common element. I guess my source is jillions of magazine articles and conversations with players, but the thing I had in mind, in its simplest form, is that if heads-up and first-to-act and planning to call an expected value bet on the river, that betting out is a good idea.


It's a long way from that to the situation in Coilean's hand, but the theme is there. So, are we talking about different things here?


Tommy

Mike,


re: betting the river.


"However, do you think it's worth risking being bluff-raised ...?"


Sure, if the risk is low enough. I can't right off the top of my head think of ever seeing someone get caught in a bluff-raise on the river in a hand with this type of board and betting. And surely, if those types of bluff-raises were going on, I'd see plenty of them get caught because, let's face it, the better virutally always calls the raise.


This makes me think the chances of a bluff-raise on this hand would be ultra-super low. And that's not even taking into account the actual opponent, who we might know with certainty is incapable of this type of bluff-raise.


Tommy

Well, I guess I don't know what the "standard teaching" is, so I shouldn't have assumed I did. I had assumed you were referring to HPFAP, since we're on a 2+2 forum, but I shouldn't have assumed that. I don't have the book in front of me, but I think the point was that if your hand is worth a call on the flop, it's better to bet if there is some chance, however slight, that you will win the hand right there. It's in essence a semi-bluff, though I know you don't like this term.


"the thing I had in mind, in its simplest form, is that if heads-up and first-to-act and planning to call an expected value bet on the river, that betting out is a good idea." Makes sense to me.


Regards,

Andy

I'm not so sure Rick. Coilean 3-bet pre-flop, 3-bet the flop, bet the turn and now bets the river when a "double-scare" card comes. Would you call here with KQ or QQ? I know lots of guys don't play as well as you and lots of guys call on the river for the size of the pot (and it is often correct), but maybe the loose aggressive guy would be more willing to take a shot at Coilean and the other opponent folding by betting when both opponents checks than he would be to call a bet. Like I say, I'm not sure.

I think the HPFAP21 section "Heads up on Fifth Street" kind of mentions this, when it advocates betting even if you are a slight underdog when you are called, rather than check calling as an even bigger underdog (p. 107 in my edition). This isn't heads up, so it might not be applicable here.

In this case, it turns out I saved a bet. As she folded, MP jokingly asked "Did you have anything?", and LAP said "I have 4 jacks" as he flashed his JJ. Like I said, he has often overrespects my hands after I show a lot of aggression (he later said that he thought I had flopped a set of kings), but even I was surprised to see that he hadn't reraised the flop or raised the turn with his set.


I rarely make these types of laydowns, which is why I posted this hand. One reason I felt more comfortable folding in this case was because I hadn't yet folded on the river in a hand where I was the aggressor. After thinking about it some more, I think maybe this is one of those "frequency things" that Tommy talks about. Anyone else think that maybe a randomizing strategy is best for calling here after you check the super scare card?

Andy,


I wouldn't call but I sure have seen a lot of these calls at yellow chip. However, checking and calling can't be a whole lot worse if you have opponents who might take a shot with a bet.


Regards,


Rick

Sorry Dan,


Didn't mean it that way. I also agree that the betting parameters are usually different for river betting than for betting on earlier rounds. ~ Rick

Colian,


IMO the problem with a "randomizing strategy" is that in general you just don't face this type of situation and these opponents enough in a game like holdem. That might not be true if you play the same 15/30 lowball game every day against the same 70 year old opponents (go to the Normandie if you want to). The best strategy might be to look harder for subtle clues (perhaps unwritten) that indicated your opponent had a big hand.


Regards,


Rick

"Well, I guess I don't know what the "standard teaching" is, so I shouldn't have assumed I did."


Hey, if you don't know, then I don't know either. I think of "standard teaching" as a grap bag of those ideas that are regularly taught in poker literature and discussions and have stood that test of time.


"I had assumed you were referring to HPFAP, since we're on a 2+2 forum, but I shouldn't have assumed that."


Reasonable assumption. I guess I was referring to 2+2+. :-)


(And I haven't had a copy of HFAP here for a few years because I've given away about five over the last decade and I haven't replaced the last one. Oh, it's almost Christmas! lol)


Tommy

for discussing playing on the river. In the case that's been brought up here it involves the decision when you're first to act and your hand is an underdog of betting, checking and calling, or checking and folding. In general if your hand is worth a call you should bet when your opponent will call with more hands than he will bet with. You should check and call when he will bet with more hands than he will call with. There are some unusual situations where the general rule does not hold but mostly it does. Read the book for a complete discussion of this topic.