Re: River value bet?
 

I think they are all unlikely as well. Villain is decent from what we know, although thats all we know. How many of those is a decent player calling the reraise with preflop OOP? Out of the ones you've selected, how many are calling that flop bet? Of course depending on villain, it may be none, it may be all, and I don't have a good enough read to judge here. We have to narrow hand ranges at some point though, and I don't think a 7 is within the likely hand ranges here for a decent villain.

Re: River value bet?
 

I bet $45 or so and fold to a c/r. Nothing very wrong with checking behind though.

Re: River value bet?
 

i agree those are all unlikely. but i could see 78s easily playing his hand like this. 77 sometimes.

anyway, just foolish to not consider them. (in terms of river action)

this doesnt mean i do or do not think it's a river bet, (I would, i think, although i'd have to think for a second) but really this is a turn check.

Re: River value bet?
 

[ QUOTE ]

this doesnt mean i do or do not think it's a river bet, (I would, i think, although i'd have to think for a second) but really this is a turn check.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very true. For some reason I was worried about straight draws on the turn. Odd that nobody has pointed this out.

Re: River value bet?
 

Why is it foolish to not consider hands I do not think are a part of his range here? If I don't think a player has X hand in his range, I am not going to alter my decision based on the fact that my range may be wrong, I am going to go with my range. Otherwise, what would the point of assigning hand ranges be? If you feel these hands have a good enough chance of being in his range here , that is a different story altogether, and no point in arguing over it as neither one of us has good enough of a read to say who may be right and who may not be. To me and my interpretation of the situation, they are unlikely enough to exclude them from his hand range, and therefor I do not worry about them when regarding river action.

Re: River value bet?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why is it foolish to not consider hands I do not think are a part of his range here? If I don't think a player has X hand in his range, I am not going to alter my decision based on the fact that my range may be wrong, I am going to go with my range. Otherwise, what would the point of assigning hand ranges be? If you feel these hands have a good enough chance of being in his range here , that is a different story altogether, and no point in arguing over it as neither one of us has good enough of a read to say who may be right and who may not be. To me and my interpretation of the situation, they are unlikely enough to exclude them from his hand range, and therefor I do not worry about them when regarding river action.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's foolish, (perhaps bad word choice) because a 7 should be in villains' hand range.

I'd probably come to the conclusion it's a river value bet anyway.

Re: River value bet?
 

[ QUOTE ]
For some reason I was worried about straight draws on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]
The only straight draws on the turn are a gutshot and an open ended chopped pot

Re: River value bet?
 

So we are simply assigning different hand ranges. I think the 7 is too unlikely to have any influence on my decision. That is where our disagreement is. As far as checking the turn, I certainly agree with that.

Re: River value bet?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For some reason I was worried about straight draws on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]
The only straight draws on the turn are a gutshot and an open ended chopped pot

[/ QUOTE ]

And that's why I said "for some reason".