Pushing it too much?
 

Five handed 40/80. UTG, seems typical shorthanded aggro capable of making plays, raises. I 3-bet in the SB with KQ. UTG is the only caller.

Flop is A 9 5 two spades.

I bet, he raises. I 3-bet and he calls.

Turn is a non spade Q and I bet, he calls.

River is a 7c and I check.

Comments?

Regards

Re: Pushing it too much?
 

I think it's significant to know if you have a spade or not because I like it much better if you don't. I suppose you would have mentioned it, and if he's the type to wait til the turn to pop you with top pair or better then once the turn gets there you're in very good shape. I like checking the river also because it virtually forces him to bet his JTs or whatever if he was semibluffing --- and if he's aggro he'll be value-betting QsJs and worse here.
-James

Re: Pushing it too much?
 

Flop 3-bet is player dependent obviously but can't be too wrong. I often end up betting the river here because I have shown so much strength that it is hard for him to bluff, after your line to the river he should know you are calling the river, but he can definitely still crying call with middle or bottom flopped pair because you could have spades.

Re: Pushing it too much?
 

I think its OK. His flop raise makes me think he probably doesnt have an ace, so I think you can push this one from time to time. I agree with Hiatus you should consider betting the river. I think he very rarely checks a better hand behind, and as big as the pot has become he will probably pay you off with most any pair. Hard to imagine you inducing a bluff as strong as you played it up to this point.

Re: Pushing it too much?
 

I don't like any of this hand, but I could be convinced otherwise I suppose. I am, however, pretty certain that the river check is terrible.

Re: Pushing it too much?
 

what happened?

Re: Pushing it too much?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I am, however, pretty certain that the river check is terrible.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

Re: Pushing it too much?
 

Depending on the image the villain had of Ikke, is it not possible he could've played A-2 or A-3 similarly? Why is there an automatic assumption that he doesn't have an ace just because he raised the flop?

Re: Pushing it too much?
 

I am also wondering how it is that some are convinced he has no A. In a 5 handed game any A will usually be raised no? He gets 3 bet preflop and on the flop could easily be raising to "see where he is at". Then decides to call down with A crap kicker?

Re: Pushing it too much?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Depending on the image the villain had of Ikke, is it not possible he could've played A-2 or A-3 similarly? Why is there an automatic assumption that he doesn't have an ace just because he raised the flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the opponent does have an ace, do you think he is going to check it on the river if you check?

Re: Pushing it too much?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Depending on the image the villain had of Ikke, is it not possible he could've played A-2 or A-3 similarly? Why is there an automatic assumption that he doesn't have an ace just because he raised the flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the opponent does have an ace, do you think he is going to check it on the river if you check?

[/ QUOTE ]

ding!

Re: Pushing it too much?
 

Well, if the villain has an ace and bets the river after hero checks, what would've been the difference from the hero betting and villain just calling as he's been doing? But, you also have the possibility that that villain improves and decides to raise hero after hero value bets the river. If hero has an ace, the river is an automatic bet. But with other holdings, I don't see how hero checking the river is significantly + or - EV.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Depending on the image the villain had of Ikke, is it not possible he could've played A-2 or A-3 similarly? Why is there an automatic assumption that he doesn't have an ace just because he raised the flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the opponent does have an ace, do you think he is going to check it on the river if you check?

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Pushing it too much?
 

But with other holdings, I don't see how hero checking the river is significantly + or - EV.

Better hands will always bet after you check (and against most players you have to call).

Worse hands may very well call, but will often just check behind if you check.

The only factor that weighs towards checking rather than betting here is the possibility of inducing a bluff which is highly unlikely given the previous action.

If you are behind, a bet is going in on the river either way.

If you are ahead, the only (plausible) way to get your opponent to put more money into the pot is to bet.


A river bet here is pretty elementary IMO.

Re: Pushing it too much?
 

But you're still not addressing the other two scenarios which are worse hands folding to a bet or better hands raising. His example is vaguely analagous to betting out on a flop vs. check-raising. Betting out will usually end in 1 bet or 3. Attemping a check-raise will you get 0 bets or 2. I think there's been enough discussion, Ikke. Post the results of the hand.

Re: Pushing it too much?
 

worse hands folding to a bet

I said in my post that inducing a bluff is unlikely to work here. Also, you are rarely going to induce a thin value bet from a hand that would not call a river bet.

or better hands raising.

Given the betting in this hand, I think a raise is unlikely. Nontheless, whether his opponent raises a better hand on the river or not isn't really relevant to the discussion here. If his opponent's tendancy to bluff raise in this spot is lower than it should be, you just fold (sacrificing nothing but a little information). If it is higher than it should be, you call and gain extra value from the hand. If his bluff raising frequency is approximately correct, than calling or folding has 0 ev either way and betting out would affect only variance. Basically, he can cross that bridge when he comes to it. Assuming that his opponent will only raise a better a hand (as your question suggests), then he will only be giving up a chance to gain information (and this will only happen those times that his opponent was slowplaying on the flop or hit his gutshot/set/2 pair on the river.

Thoughts
 

We all agree that there are only two real decisions in this hand. The flop 3-bet and the river check. There seems to be some consensus that the 3-bet has the potential of being a good one, whereas the river check is bad (or even "terrible").

Let's first focus on the river check. When I played the hand it was a classic example of choosing between value betting and inducing a bluff. Let it be clear: The thought of a better hand checking behind didn't cross my mind. So that wasn't why I checked.

Let's go through the hand. After he raises the flop he either has an ace, or some kind of pair or bluff or a draw. Let's ignore a pure bluff after he calls my 3-bet (and turn bet).

I do think the probability of him having an ace here was slightly reduced and favoured him having a draw or medium pair. So what pairs does he most likely have?

Considering the aggression level in this game (Paradise 40/80) I would think there would be a good chance he's capping pocket pairs equal or better than TT preflop. So my estimation was that IF he held a pair, it would be either a Q (most likely with flushdraw) or a 9 (which would likely be 98, 9T, maybe 9J (remember he raised UTG)).

I also think there is a good probability that these hands are going to pay me off on the river. So betting is better than checking there.

But I also think people underestimate the chances of him either valuebetting a Q or bluffing with a busted flush. I did show strength throughout the hand, but a river check either screams an upcoming check-raise or a given up bluff/semi-bluff attempt. Why on earth would I be check-calling here if I had an A or better?
So I think the chances of him betting a busted flushdraw are fairly good (at least larger than most of you think). Also, the chance he is raising the river should not totally be ignored.

IMO the largest part of the river check being good or bad comes down to the likelyhood of him having a flushdraw or a 9. I think it's a lot closer than Paluka and Clarkmeister suggest. But at the moment I think betting is slightly better.

What about the flop 3-bet?

Regards

Re: Pushing it too much?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If his opponent's tendancy to bluff raise in this spot is lower than it should be, you just fold (sacrificing nothing but a little information). If it is higher than it should be, you call and gain extra value from the hand. If his bluff raising frequency is approximately correct, than calling or folding has 0 ev either way and betting out would affect only variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

And can I use Google to get those percentages?

Regards

Re: Pushing it too much?
 

And can I use Google to get those percentages?

Yeah, just type in "Feel AND Read"

Re: Pushing it too much?
 

;-)

Seriously though; you have about as much information about this player as I had. He seemed a typical shorthanded aggro player. I only had played a few hands before with him.

So would you call a river raise getting 1:11.5?

Regards

Re: Pushing it too much?
 

No reads, probably not. That 7 on the river was a complete blank, and with your lead 3-bet on the flop, I don't think a bluff-river raise would be that feasible. My guess would be that if this guy wanted to make a play for the pot, he'd have done it on the turn. I think as a default, most players don't bluff raise enough in this situation (probably because it rarely works).

You said in your last post something along the lines of "why would I ever check an Ace in this situation?"

If you have him on a busted draw and are trying to induce a bluff, what difference does your handstrength make?


Personally, I think it's more likely that he's on a 9 or a pocket pair than a flush draw. And even if he was on a flush draw, there's no guarantee he'll bluff at it. Maybe it's just me, but when I see this type of betting in a hand, I fully expect the first player to call a river bet after he checks. He either has a decent hand and he's trying to induce a bluff, or he has a so so hand with some showdown value and he's hoping to show down for free. Either way, I think a river bet is getting called, and a savvy player will realize that and not bet his J-high.

Re: Pushing it too much?
 

When are you going to post what he had?

Re: Thoughts
 

Its fairly common in holdem, no-limit but limit as well, to make something of a combination value bet and a bluff. For example, you are checked to on the end, you have less than promised, but you have a hand. Perhaps you were drawing and caught a pair. Your opponent could have very little, but might call you down anyways to stop a total bluff, on the other hand, he might believe you have what you promised and fold a hand that beats you.

It seems to me, what you did on the end is attempt to INDUCE an aggressive player to make a "thin" value bet with a hand you beat, or perhaps just fire away on a total bluff if he missed a draw. The key is your check is strange, and he must think your check on the end is strange. I mean, hell, you've been known to three bet the flop with the nut no pair, so maybe you really got no pair. If he missed and has no pair, its worth a shot in his mind. Also, he knows you would bet a queen, right! I mean, you would have to bet a queen since everybody is pointing out how "terrible" it is not to bet it (BTW Ikke, umm, did you know that he isn't going to check a hand that beat you? I can explain this further if you aren't too busy playing games with buyin bigger than most posters bankrolls). So maybe he will bet his small pair on the end since you don't have a queen or better.

You also point out the raise factor, which is small, but there. You think you outsmarted yourself, okay. Often the smartest play isn't the best play!

Re: Pushing it too much?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you have him on a busted draw and are trying to induce a bluff, what difference does your handstrength make?

[/ QUOTE ]

You quoted me out of context. I said I'm never CHECK-CALLING with an ace. It's either betting out or check-raising.

Regards

Results
 

I don't think it matters much for the discussion, but my opponent held a pair AND a flushdraw. His hand was Js9s. It would have been much more interesting to see what he had done with a hand like J8s.

Regards

Re: Results
 

I'm guessing he ended up checking behind you on the river? I doubt the hand would've been nearly as interesting if he had had J8s instead of J9s. With a pair and a flush draw he was exactly even money against you on the flop if you had had something like AK or AQ with no spade. Frankly, I'm surprised he didn't cap the flop and perhaps only slow down on the turn. If he had had only a flush draw, he probably would've played it somewhat less aggressively.

Re: Results
 

If he had had only a flush draw, he probably would've played it somewhat less aggressively.

I think the opposite is true. That's why I put him on a pair rather than a draw. If he just had a naked flush draw, I think a turn raise would be routine in this situation given the preflop and flop action.

Ikke,

I didn't mean to quote you out of context, its just that line jumped out at me. I really don't see a raise there as having much value unless he has specifically a worse A than you (and maybe not even then). Would you ever really attempt a checkraise bluff on the river and risk having him check behind and take the pot with K-high or whatever? If you had just an ace, I really don't see him calling the raise with a worse hand.

Without knowing your hand (or having played with you), going just by the betting here, I'd probably put you on something like TT (which is why I didn't like the river check). I think your opponent here played this hand somewhat poorly by not raising the turn. What would you have done with your KQ here had he raised the turn? How about TT?

Re: Pushing it too much?
 

I can't get behind this play unless its some sort've balancing play. In a vacuum it can't be good. Too likely he has an A or pair he won't fold. If he has a flush draw and will fold all pairs he makes off the flush draw then you're picking up some equity.


You have to convince me that this guy is unlikely to have an Ace somehow. (Maybe he is a big rope a doper or something of that nature).