River folds are cool atm.
 

Party Poker 5/10 Hold'em (6 max, 5 handed) converter

Preflop: Hero is BB with T[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].
<font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">SB raises</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero 3-bets</font>, SB calls.

Flop: (6 SB) K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
SB checks, <font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, SB calls.

Turn: (4 BB) 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
SB checks, Hero checks.

River: (4 BB) A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">SB bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#CC3333">SB 3-bets</font>, Hero folds.

Final Pot: 9 BB

BB is a semi-reasonable player, 35/10 from memory.

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

fold is easy

i dont like the raise. if he had the lead it might be ok

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

I don't understand the fold. Ax is so unlikely?

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

theres four to a straight on the board

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

Pots big but not gigantic. villian is reasonable. Fold is good, IMO.

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

Of course. But we have to be pretty certain villain has a Q to fold this. I think Ax could play this hand the same, is what I'm saying. Or A2. Hands we beat.

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

Ax is never 3-betting here. Ever.

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

Not in my experience, but I don't play 5/10, so I'll concede this one if the probability really is 0%.

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

Why raise this river? On the off-chance that Ax calls?

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

This looks good, but I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish with your raise...

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why raise this river? On the off-chance that Ax calls?

[/ QUOTE ]

Villain could easily have lower 2 pair as well and tried to slowplay it to the turn.

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

I would bet/call the turn and fold the turn UI.

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

I think the turns pretty standard. No worse hands are calling, all hands in front are c/r or calling, if I get c/r I have to call because of stupid outs.

This comes under checking with outs.

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

cool, river raise is cool too IMO, i don't think this player can 3-bet this river without a Q. The turn check should be the part that is debated here. It might have been but I'm yet to read the replies.

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

River check is interesting, but I don't think its close. Prove me wrong [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

OK, my brain hurts from thinking through this post. But, I've finally decided that I'm setting a rule for myself that I vow to never violate. Here's my new rule:

If I choose to raise the river for value against a single donk betting opponent, I will never fold for one additional bet no matter how grim it looks if I am getting better than 8 to 1.

There, I said it. My new rule doesn't stop me from attempting razor thin value raises, nor does it stop me from making the occasional big laydown. It does prevent me from attempting both all in the same hand. I'm just not sophisticated enough to do that, and will likely outguess myself at some point in the future. Flame away, but I feel better.

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

This opponent didn't donk, and his river raise suggests only one hand, unless hes a total lag, which I dont think this guy is.

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

[ QUOTE ]
River check is interesting, but I don't think its close. Prove me wrong

[/ QUOTE ]
I never said anything about a river check. i think it was the turn i thought there could be some debate over. However, the more I think about it the more I think its a clear check

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

Sorry, I meant the turn check, of course.

Yeah, I mean I don't really see what betting accomplishes, if we're ahead hes probably folding, if we're behind the free card is good.

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

Oops, you're right, it wasn't really a donk. OK, I'm amending my new rule:

If I choose to raise the river for value against a single betting opponent, I will never fold for one additional bet no matter how grim it looks if I am getting better than 8 to 1.

This rule is certainly more questionable than the rule you stated in a post yesterday that you don't bet / fold the river, but I still like it. If it's not neutral or slightly positive ev at the time, it will be for picking off/discouraging bluffs.

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

[ QUOTE ]

If I choose to raise the river for value against a single betting opponent, I will never fold for one additional bet no matter how grim it looks if I am getting better than 8 to 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is like the worst rule ever.

Krishan

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

You venture into this board to state the obvious? Please post here more [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

much of the time if they're that passive pre-flop (35/10 is fairly passive) then they aren't likely to be capable of 3-betting on a board like this without having you beat.


If you had some ag-factor numbers or other observations to the contrary then go ahead and call if you think you have a chance.
In other words...without knowing anything else about this guy...if he was 35/30 PF instead of 30/10 I would more seriously consider calling-down.

Passive before flop tends to stay reasonably passive post-flop a lot of the time thus you can pretty much believe them when they go crazy on you.

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, I meant the turn check, of course.

Yeah, I mean I don't really see what betting accomplishes, if we're ahead hes probably folding, if we're behind the free card is good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't like giving gutshots/OESD's a free card here, and they most likely call incorrectly. Qx hands certainly call here which is thin because they'd be getting 4:1, and the chance of a split is high.
Your A outs are really dirty.
Worse, any card that improves him you split or lose to most of the time.
Getting raised on the turn really sucks. Maybe if you know he'll raise an OESD on the turn the check is good. Otherwise I bet here and be glad to take down the pot given this board..

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

[ QUOTE ]
You venture into this board to state the obvious? Please post here more [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Go comment on the thread I started. You better explains your outs. I made it for you and you haven't gotten involved.

Krishan

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

[ QUOTE ]

If I choose to raise the river for value against a single donk betting opponent, I will never fold for one additional bet no matter how grim it looks if I am getting better than 8 to 1.

There, I said it. My new rule doesn't stop me from attempting razor thin value raises

[/ QUOTE ]

of course it does. you will either not be making enough raises or some of your value raises will become -EV

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

Not really. I judge a value bet as follows: if called, am i still the favorite. I don't worry about getting raised when judging the value bet as well, since I might choose to fold. Now, you're correct that my rule ties my hands by forcing me to call the raise, which might be -ev, but it need not make me more reluctant to value bet in the first place, nor does it make my value bets theoretically less profitable since making the bet and responding to the raise are different (at lease in my mind, which is fairly scattered).

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not really. I judge a value bet as follows: if called, am i still the favorite. I don't worry about getting raised when judging the value bet as well, since I might choose to fold. Now, you're correct that my rule ties my hands by forcing me to call the raise, which might be -ev, but it need not make me more reluctant to value bet in the first place, nor does it make my value bets theoretically less profitable since making the bet and responding to the raise are different (at lease in my mind, which is fairly scattered).

[/ QUOTE ]

no, they're not and it isn't close. If you can fold to a 3bet in the OP hand, you can make that raise if you believe your hand is good &gt;50% of the time when called. If you think you're going to be good 51% of the time when called and you are unable to fold to a 3bet you cannot raise for value here. You can understand that right?

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

[ QUOTE ]
no, they're not and it isn't close...You can understand that right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I can understand your argument but I think it's incorrect.

My rule is based on the fact that, whether I have the ability to fold to a 3bet or not, it's never very -ev (for the final call alone, considered in isolation) to simply always call, given high enough odds (my cutoff is about 8 - 1).

Your critism of me assumes that I'm conceding that my automatic river call is sometimes a huge mistake, ev-wise. If that were the case, then yes, I'd simply be stupid and if I was to have any merit as a human I'd have to go back and re-think my value betting from an earlier street to compensate for this big leak. But I don't concede that a river call at better than 8 to 1 is EVER seriously minus EV. I know that if this assumption is correct, then my point I made earier about not having to consider the two in tandem is correct.

I'm aware that TOP says something (I'm at work and don't have it in front of me) about limiting river value bets to times when you are 55% favorite to take into account getting raised and thus, presumabely, having to give it up, therefore incurring an occasional -1 bet vs. 0 for just checking. But I don't give it up because I think my river call is positive ev since I apply my rule only at long enough odds that I believe that to be the case.

But, I fully expect that you, and many others, will disagree that a river call is always neutral or better in terms of ev at the odds I require. Here's the way I think about it--the more and more improbable the success a particular river call seems to be, the more incentive someone has to bluff. There are some situations where it's "impossible" that I have the best hand, but as long as I have literally more than the bottom two unpaired cards you have to concede that a call is positive ev at some set of odds, right? What if I restated my rule to say 100 to 1. Are than any situations, other than holding bottom two upaired cards, where the possibility of a bluff or a newbie misclick doesn't justify a call?

So, I'm prepared to accept criticism of my rule being triggered at 8 to 1. Otherwise I think you're criticism of me is incorrect as it's based on an incorrect assumption of how I view the strenght of my hand even after I make the crying call.

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

hey ben -

actually, it's pretty clear that you didn't understand my argument. I'm not assuming your river call is a huge mistake and you are correct in a very large pot it's usually never going to be.

here is an example

your opponent bets into you on the river, and you believe the following things are true if you raise:

55% of the time your opponent will call and you win
30% of the time your opponent will call and you lose
15% of the time your opponent will 3bet and you lose

you can only raise for value here if you can fold to a 3bet. Do you see this now?

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

[ QUOTE ]
hey ben -

15% of the time your opponent will 3bet and you lose



[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, I'll lose 100% of the time my opponent three bets? Well sure, I just don't think that situation exists at greater than 8 to 1. If I think I'm a favorite when called, how often am I a 100% dog when raised? Can you give an example? Not OP's, right?

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

ok dude it's completely irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make, but fine here's another example

53% of the time your opponent will call and you win
30% of the time your opponent will call and you lose
15% of the time your opponent will 3bet and you lose
2% of the time your opponent will 3bet and you win


this is only a value raise if you can fold to a 3bet.

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

haven't run anything with those numbers, but the concept jba is talking about is something that everyone should understand.

ben, having a set rule that you always call at 8-1 is obviously not optimal strategy.

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

[ QUOTE ]

15% of the time your opponent will 3bet and you lose
2% of the time your opponent will 3bet and you win




[/ QUOTE ]

Um, no. Remember my rule only kicks in at 8 to 1 or better. So, 15 to 2 is 7.5 to 1. Therefore, not only do I not have to be prepared to fold, a fold would be a mistake.

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

The postulate is that we are a value betting favorite when merely called. This means our hand has some value. Then we get faced with calling one additional bet. We certainly went from a small favorite to a big dog. But how often is it such a big dog that we don't win 11% "by mistake?" Even so, how would you approach someone like me? You'd value re-raise more against me (to the extent that comes up often) but would have to cut down your bluffs against me, no?

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

i'm pretty sure you're a troll now.

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

Why do you say that? I thought we were having an interesting argument. You really did fail to put any pot odds in your example, and the rule I quoted only kicks in at 8 to 1. So, if I was getting better than 8 to 1, I'd have to always call in your example.

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you say that? I thought we were having an interesting argument. You really did fail to put any pot odds in your example, and the rule I quoted only kicks in at 8 to 1. So, if I was getting better than 8 to 1, I'd have to always call in your example.

[/ QUOTE ]

maybe I'm wrong, you just seem to keep throwing the conversation off onto bizzare tangents.

i didn't list the pot odds because they are irrelevant. we are talking about whether or not a bet is for value. in the example I listed you get value from betting only if you fold when he 3bets. It is to prove my point that there are many situations that you can only value bet/raise if you are able to fold to a raise.

Re: River folds are cool atm.
 

Exactly.