Re: Laydown that I regret
 

Must...not...raise...fold.

Here is my order of preference.

1. Call
2. Fold (very distant second imo)
3. Raise/Call
4. Raise/Fold

If you specify the stack sizes relative to the blinds, you may get some more responses.

Re: Laydown that I regret
 

I imagine I'm sometimes guilty of this type of thing nyself, but when somebody just posts "river raise sucks" without giving any analysis or reasoning, I don't find it terribly helpful. [Except in the sense that if it's a player I respect. And I do respect James 282. A lot.]

Could you elaborate on why you think it sucks? Thanks.

Re: Laydown that I regret
 

I agree with a lot of what was said in this thread. The river is a should call, not a should raise. For the 1st hour after that hand I was chastising myself for that raise. However, at that point I was completely confident that the fold was the correct play (esp. given tourney considerations). Then about 5 hours later in the tourney at another table, I saw this same player running all the usual donk moves again and again, but then he shows off an extended bluff with 44 on a AKT8ddd board. Another player saw that and said, "Man, I love playing with that guy, absolutely fearless." At that point I was no longer happy with my read or my fold.

Anyway, thanks for the criticism.

Chief: while there are many players in MTT who are aware of what Limit is, and even play from time to time, the thread would have gone un-responded to, or responded to with a NL mentality.

Re: Laydown that I regret
 

have you read Tournament Poker For advanced players?

if so you should know that to raise this river is to [censored] all over your self.

really really really bad river raise. who cares about the fold.

Barron

Re: Laydown that I regret
 

[ QUOTE ]
I imagine I'm sometimes guilty of this type of thing nyself, but when somebody just posts "river raise sucks" without giving any analysis or reasoning, I don't find it terribly helpful. [Except in the sense that if it's a player I respect. And I do respect James 282. A lot.]

Could you elaborate on why you think it sucks? Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll jump in here. It's because you've telegraphed your holding in a way ahead/way behind situation. So if he doesn't have trips, he knows you either have it or an ace. So on the slim chance he has a weaker ace, you'll get a call, but the vast majority of the time you'll either fold him or get reraised.

The villian in this hand has bet directly into the overcard, representing significant strength. This comes right after a check on the turn that screams of a whiffed checkraise.

So what does our hero gain by raising here? Let's say he's ahead of a weaker holding (perhaps a weaker ace or a PP he just won't give up on) that will call the raise about 15% of the time. Let's say he is behind trips 40% of the time. Let's say he is behind better than trips 20% of the time. And let's say his opponent reraises with a worse hand 10% of the time and hero folds 5% of the time when this occurs. Finally, let's say his opponent folds to a raise 15% of the time. Since I don't know the bet amounts let's just make them 10 for ease of calculation.


So all in all, about 20% of the time hero can expect to make a small profit from his raise. 5% of the time the raise will cost him the whole pot (when he incorrectly folds), and 60% of the time it will cost him the raise and any call of the reraise. 15% of the time the raise means nothing to hero, as his opponent folds.

Now it is easy to see now why the river raise is a poor play. Hero is generally only going to get called by hands that beat him, and those hands will likely raise him. On those occassions hero is ahead, he will be very far ahead and villian will probably fold. There are very few holdings villian could hold given this action that hero beats *and* that will call the raise, and of course that's precisely why we make raises on the river like this--to get inferior hands to call. But when most of the call-worthy hands are reraising hands, and there are very few hands villian will simply call with and lose, the overall EV of the raise is quite negative.

Re: Laydown that I regret
 

That's all well and good, but villian has shown himself incapable of folding any pair. Betting into someone who checked behind on the turn is so common it is laughable. I raised here fully confident that he calls with he 6, 4, 3, or weaker ace. I was also equally confident that he only reraises with trips or better. In a cash game vs. this opponent, this is a no-brainer raise IMO. On the other hand, given the tourney situation that makes it ok to fold to a reraise, it was definately wrong for me to raise. I think the river raise is a minor mistake given my read and that it is a tourney.

Whatever, I posted this because I botched the hand and wanted it confirmed that I did in fact botch it. So thank you all.

Re: Laydown that I regret
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm the resident MTT Limit pro, which should tell you a little something about our dire needs.

[/ QUOTE ]

MTT limit pro? Is that possible? There are hardly any Limit MTT's where I play.

JT [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

Re: Laydown that I regret
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm the resident MTT Limit pro, which should tell you a little something about our dire needs.

[/ QUOTE ]

MTT limit pro? Is that possible? There are hardly any Limit MTT's where I play.

JT [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

that's why I'm broke. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: Laydown that I regret
 

Does anyone bet this turn given CSC's read on villian?

Re: Laydown that I regret
 

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone bet this turn given CSC's read on villian?

[/ QUOTE ]

...why would I bet the turn against a villian that doesn't fold a pair? Especially when checking will have him betting into me on my 15 out river. Especially especially when villian could raise the turn.

Why are you thinking bet the turn?