Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

Reading this makes me think I don't check enough.

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is nothing to block against (unless you believe an Ace with a better kicker checks twice on a relatively harmless board).

I see it as a question of how to best get paid off here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since we just established that even most 2+2'ers never check behind on the turn with a hand...

That's half the answer (2+2 or not). Now, given that the action so far has gone complete, check/call, check/check, how *do* you get paid on this river?

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

At lower levels, 11-55, most players will call a 1/3 pot bet at this point w/ high card or any pair, but no more than 1/2.

Don't know about high levels, maybe a push would disguise the hand [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

[ QUOTE ]
Corollary to citanul's 'something to think about' post

[/ QUOTE ]

now that your a lawyer are u gonna be using words like that alot?

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

Bet 74.5% of the time.

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

check/calling small bets on the river is not the problem. what if he decides to bet big or push? in which case, i would fold. (is this the wrong play?)

so i'll bet the river 90%.

jc

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

Bump.

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

At my stakes, I bet this 100% of the time, as MHIG ~80% of the time and I'm called about 80% of the time and raised 10% of the time, frequently by 67.

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

Give him the opportunity to bet his 2 face cards. He tried one stab at the pot on the flop (as he should)...but the the turn was check/check, and you check again the river, thats not common from a good hand. So he is apt to think "maybe he missed" and fire a small bet at the river.

If this hand was constructed to show hero feeling HHIG, and that villain has weak/no hand, then for sure checking the river is going to get more money out of him.

The only difficulty with this as your standard line is that some villains will be making LARGE river bets, with a good hand or not. (these, are the "good" players). So i'd imagine that vs. certain very aggro opponents, if you had it well noted, you'd be too apt to be taken off the best hand, so you'd have to bet out. But i dont play against anyone but random low-stakers, so i check this river, and harvest a pathetic bluff 50% of the time. Perhaps only a few times per session will i have paid off a better hand.

Re: Corollary to citanul\'s \'something to think about\' post
 

Maybe I'm just really stupid, but I bet this 100% of the time unless I know my opponent to be very aggressive and will bet a worse hand. Considering he checked behind on the ragged turn it's pretty unlikely that that's the case.

Lots of players will call with a PP, an 8, maybe even a lower pair or king high. They won't bet it though...so I throw out a value bet and hope it gets called.

As an aside (corollary to your corollary?), I would never check the turn either. The poker version of never, at least, meaning as a general rule and without specific reads to suggest against it.