bet/fold vs check/call on the river
 

I've been hanging in the HUSH forum for a while and it appears that many people seem to advocate the bet fold method when a scare card falls on the river. For example, the third to the flush or something that pairs the board. I see this as wrong in most cases but am willing to be corrected. Is anybody willing to give a good example of when a bet/fold is correct on the river? Something clear cut.

Thanks, I'm just trying to "get" the logic behind the bet/fold concept as compared to check call.

Re: bet/fold vs check/call on the river
 

It's tough to comment in the abstract. Is there a particular hand that you have in mind. The "right play" would depend on a lot of factors, including the following:
How many ppl left in the hand
How those ppl bet throughout the hand
General betting patterns of those remaining in the hand
Strength of own hand
etc...

Re: bet/fold vs check/call on the river
 

If there is one poker concept that confuses me the most, this is it. It costs the same to check/call as it does to bet/fold except in the former, you get to see a showdown.

This may very well be a leak I need to fix, but if I bet the river and get raised, I normally call. I should look into PT to see what I'm actually doing and how I'm doing at it, but I think the concept is that by betting, you're giving yourself another way to win which is by having your opponent fold even with what may be the best hand. You don't get that opportunity by check/calling. You actually NEED the best hand to win and can therefore only win one way.

Now for the disclaimer: I could be full of it and not know what I'm talking about.

Onaflag...........

Re: bet/fold vs check/call on the river
 

I use check/call a lot more than bet/fold. The advantage of bet,fold is that you don't have to show your cards if you're not the best hand. By not showing your cards you don't allow the table to get any information on you. Plus as one person has said, you get the chance to win the hand right there. When that fourth club comes on the river and you bet, you're basically saying "I have it, do you?" and his raise answers back "yes". A specific example that you had in mind might make the discussion a little better.

Re: bet/fold vs check/call on the river
 

I think the biggest advantage of the bet/fold line isn't necessarily to get your opponent to fold the better hand, but to make sure that when you're ahead and he has something marginal (like TPTK against TPWK), you usually still earn the extra bet on the river. And it costs you nothing extra when you fold to a raise.

This play is best used heads-up when you're against a reasonable opponent who would usually check behind to a river scare card, and who you'd be 99% certain has the better hand if he raises. If you're against a habitual river bettor who'll never take a free showdown when checked to, then just check/call instead--he'll sometimes bet hands that he would have folded to your bet.

Re: bet/fold vs check/call on the river
 

My biggest leak is my check/call on the river....I do it too much. My river aggression is far too low. The idea is that you are ahead the majority of the time, because you're playing better starting cards and better play on the flop and turn. You should bet out to make sure to get that 1BB. The positive result will happen far more than the negative effect. It does rely on being able to fold though when you bet and someone raises.

Re: bet/fold vs check/call on the river
 

Reasons to bet/fold:

<ul type="square">[*]There are alot of hands that will pay you off.[*]You don't think villian will bluff-raise.[*]worse hands will check behind, but better hands will bet, which you'll have to call anyway.[*]There are multiple opponents calling you down where one may have improved to beat you, but if not, there's alot of value in a bet.[/list]
Reasons to check/call:
<ul type="square">[*]There doesn't seem to be too many hands that will pay off.[*]To induce a bluff from a hand that would otherwise check behind. [*]You think there's a good chance you'll get raised by a better hand, but you can't fold.[*]When you think villian will bet most of his hands when he's behind and checked to, and he will raise his better hands when you bet. [/list]
There are other reasons, but this is a pretty good basis. You need to weigh all these ideas, because it's rarely clear cut.

Re: bet/fold vs check/call on the river
 

I'm no expert, but I'll share my opinion with you.

The situation to avoid is betting when your opponent will only call or raise if they have you beat and fold when they have the worst hand. Your bet is then all downside risk and no upside. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] That's the problem with scary cards on the river. If your opponent has been calling you all the way down to the river, it looks like they have been drawing. The scare card may very well be just the card they were looking for.

Bet/Fold works best when a non-scare card comes. It continues the image of you having the best hand, knowing it and leading out. You'll sometimes get a better (marginal) hand to fold and often get paid off by marginally worse hands. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: bet/fold vs check/call on the river
 

I believe they could only be advocating this philosphy because they are seeing their opponents fold much more often than they call.
This may be because their opponent is on a draw, on a flop that has two possible draws, one of the draws is made on the river, they bet and their opponent folds because it is not the draw they were on and there are two overcards on the board to their pair. So, they had the best hand to begin with and by betting out, they lost out on the chance of their opponent betting their weak holding on the river, when they had top pair along with them, but didn't have as good of a kicker. In those situations, wouldn't you want to check and induce a bet?

For this play to be profitable, their opponent would have to call much more often with their weaker holding than they would fold, and, hardly ever bluff with a raise. In addition, the more money in the pot before the river betting, the more dangerous this play is to being -EV, because you lose the whole pot on those rare occassions that your opponent raises with the worse hand. So they must be talking about a nominal pot size.
On the other side of the coin, if you never bet your TPTC on the river when a str8 comes, you will never get an under pair to bet, if he knows you. On the upside, there are a lot of people on-line, so with PT, you can determine how many players in the game have a lot of experience playing with you.

I don't see how this would be profitable, unless, you are on a str8 draw, with a str8 &amp; flush draw possible on the flop, the flush comes and you bet out with nothing. This is profitable even if he calls, as you will get more action on the river when you do have the best hand.

As to your question, I am not saying that I think you should never do it, as betting out with TPTC on the river against a possible flush and having your opponent just call with his flush, holding 65s, will get you more action on the river.

Re: bet/fold vs check/call on the river
 

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks, I'm just trying to "get" the logic behind the bet/fold concept as compared to check call.

[/ QUOTE ]

Head up on the end – Hero is first to act

Bet / Fold (It seems to me this is more commonly correct than check / call)
-When you have a weak or nothing hand that can’t stand / does not want a showdown…If the pot odds exist to make a river bluff profitable…bet.
-When your bet looks natural in context of the board texture and previous action in the hand.
-When your opponent will only raise with a better than average hand.

Check / Call
-You have an above average hand that can’t stand a raise.
-A bet would look suspicious based on board texture / previous action (it will only be called / raised by hands that have it beat on average)
-Your opponent tends to bluff / overplay.

I’m coming to the conclusion that in these situations I should be factoring in:

1- Hand strength
2- Board texture / previous action
3- Opponent’s tendencies
4- ???

I’m omitting relationships with opponents as a consideration. The truth of the matter is, most players do not apply higher levels of thinking in their decision making process. It is worth noting however that against an extremely savvy opponent, you should factor it in if you are good at splitting hairs in these situations.

What would some of you more experienced players rate the top 3 reasons above in order of importance? Anything to add to the top 3 I listed above?

Any input on this would be appreciated.

Re: bet/fold vs check/call on the river
 

"In addition, the more money in the pot before the river betting, the more dangerous this play is to being -EV"

That is a great point! ... Make my new list of considerations in my decision making process in these situations:

In order of importance - Order is up for debate
1- Pot Size
2- Board texture / previous action
3- Hand Strength
4- Opponent's Tendencies

hypothetical hand
 

you're in MP dealt Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], you raise button calls, button is 70/5/0.5

3.5 SB
Flop is 5 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

You bet and are called

3.5 BB
Turn is 2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

You bet and are called

5.5 BB
River is J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

You do what?

How does this change if the Button is LAG, TAG, or perhaps the pot was bigger.

Thanks for all the input above...

Re: bet/fold vs check/call on the river
 

[ QUOTE ]
In order of importance - Order is up for debate
1- Pot Size
2- Board texture / previous action
3- Hand Strength
4- Opponent's Tendencies

[/ QUOTE ]

Opponenets tendencies are way to low on this list. If my opponent will never bluff raise then I will use bet/fold with any medium strength hand almost constantly.

Re: bet/fold vs check/call on the river
 

This is good. 4. success rate v. return

Re: bet/fold vs check/call on the river
 

1. Hand Strength.
Reason: It dictates what you would like to happen, i.e., if you have the nutz, you want your opponent to bet when you ck and call when you ck/raise. So.......

2. Opponent Tendencies:
Reason. Once we know what we would like our opponent to do based upon our holdings, we need to know what he/she is capable of.

3.Previous action:
Reason. We need to have a read on what our opponent may have to help determine how cooperative he may be in doing what we would like done.

4. Board Texture.

Reason: Knowing what our opponent is capable of, and, having a read on his/her possible holdings, we can compare same to what we are holding and make a determination as to the strength of our hand compared to the possible strength of our opponent and the possibility of our decision being successful

4. Pot size;

Reason: having assessed our chance of success, based upon the above, we compare to the return.

Re: hypothetical hand
 

I believe this is player dependent. If he is going to call more often with a lesser hand than fold and will not bluff, and bet much less often with a lesser hand than check behind you, then you bet, because you cannot ck/fold.

In this case, you can only beat a smaller pocket pair, so why not ck and induce a bet, if your opponent is capable of same, and call? Otherwise, bet/fold to a raise if the opponent would not bluff.

Re: hypothetical hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
you're in MP dealt Q [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]Q [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], you raise button calls, button is 70/5/0.5

3.5 SB
Flop is 5 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 7 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

You bet and are called

3.5 BB
Turn is 2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

You bet and are called

5.5 BB
River is J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

You do what?

How does this change if the Button is LAG, TAG, or perhaps the pot was bigger.

Thanks for all the input above...

[/ QUOTE ]

Against a TAG check/calling.

Against a LAG bet/calling.

Against a LP who won't bluff raise here, bet/folding.

I don't bet/fold here too often.

Re: hypothetical hand
 

Isn’t there 6.5 BB in the pot on the river? I’m assuming a 70/5/0.5 is a loose passive non-value seeking donator? Could you explain these three PT stats everyone refers to and their importance? I can’t find anything using the search engine.


VS. LOOSE PASSIVE OPPONENT

I bet because the pot is small enough that the times he raises I can fold safely.

He is not very capable of a river bluff unless by accident – Or you awoke the aggressive beast within him by giving him a reason to play tricky… show down bluffs / make him angry etc.

Not to mention - my bet is consistent with what looks natural. This type of opponent is likely thinking in terms of “flush got there, jack paired (if even that), maybe he has KQ, I CALL.” - Either / Or -

VS. LAG OR TAG W/ BIGGER POT

Check / Call – They likely would have shown aggression prior to the river with most hands worthy of a call in their eyes. Give them a chance to open up their game (bluff/thin value bet) and make a potential mistake.

-VS. Lag you could bet with the intention of calling a raise but that is outside the scope of this discussion-

VS. UNKNOWN
Interesting situation, comes up all the time on-line…

Check / Call – (see previous post in this thread for rationale)

What do you think the most difficult part of all of this? For me it’s making it part of my decision making process without taking a lot of time to mull over everything. I need a little more experience with this.

Re: bet/fold vs check/call on the river
 

Since you asked for a clear-cut example, isn't the "Clarkmeister Theorem" a perfect instance of bet/fold on the river?

Jim

Re: bet/fold vs check/call on the river
 

[ QUOTE ]
Since you asked for a clear-cut example, isn't the "Clarkmeister Theorem" a perfect instance of bet/fold on the river?

Jim

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know this theorum

Re: bet/fold vs check/call on the river
 

I always though Bet Fold was a possable improvemnt on Bet Call.

Re: hypothetical hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
Isn&amp;#8217;t there 6.5 BB in the pot on the river? I&amp;#8217;m assuming a 70/5/0.5 is a loose passive non-value seeking donator? Could you explain these three PT stats everyone refers to and their importance?

[/ QUOTE ]

70 is VPIP% (Voluntarily put money in the pot) ...It's the percentage of time the player puts money in to see the flop when not a blind or posting

5 is PFR% (Pre-Flop raise percentage)..percentage of hands the player raises before the flop

0.5 is aggression factor (AF) ....It's a ratio of the number of bets or raises the player makes compared to calls. (Bet+Raise+Reraised)/(Called)

Re: bet/fold vs check/call on the river
 

Here it is, as described by W. Deranged:

Clarkmeister's Theorem: When playing a heads-up pot out-of-position, always lead the river if the river makes four-to-a-flush.

The idea--

If you have a big flush, it's obviously a value bet.

If you don't have a big flush:

1. Villain may fold a better, non-flush hand or a baby flush fearing a big flush.

2. Villain may call with a worse hand thinking you're full of it (it's one of those weird situations where there are both value-bet and bluff-bet reasons to bet).

3. You can easily fold to a raise.

4. You don't allow yourself to get bluffed out of pots when you do have the best hand (particularly as many will automatically bet the scare card if you check).

I (Jim) would add that this assumes a reasonable, thinking opponent. I've seen Party Poker fish raise and re-raise here with only a 5 or 6 of trump.

Anyhow, I think this is an excellent use of bet/fold.

Jim

Re: bet/fold vs check/call on the river
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here it is, as described by W. Deranged:

Clarkmeister's Theorem: When playing a heads-up pot out-of-position, always lead the river if the river makes four-to-a-flush.

The idea--

If you have a big flush, it's obviously a value bet.

If you don't have a big flush:

1. Villain may fold a better, non-flush hand or a baby flush fearing a big flush.

[/ QUOTE ]

What kind of person would fold for 1 bet in a 10BB pot, when they know you are capable of this move?

[ QUOTE ]
2. Villain may call with a worse hand thinking you're full of it (it's one of those weird situations where there are both value-bet and bluff-bet reasons to bet).

[/ QUOTE ]

So, he'll fold a better hand or small flush, but call with a worse hand......

[ QUOTE ]
3. You can easily fold to a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can, as you're bluffing with what you think is the worse hand. Me, I'm ck/calling in case villain bet, thinking I'll muck.

[ QUOTE ]
4. You don't allow yourself to get bluffed out of pots when you do have the best hand (particularly as many will automatically bet the scare card if you check).

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither do I.


[ QUOTE ]
I (Jim) would add that this assumes a reasonable, thinking opponent. I've seen Party Poker fish raise and re-raise here with only a 5 or 6 of trump.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay. So, we need to find ourselves in this position, against a player, who will lay down a better hand, thinking we have the flush, or a player who will call with a worse hand, or a "fish" who will raise with small trump cards, when we have none. Or....should we just ck/fold to the "fish" if we know he wouldn't bet without the trump? Or, should we bet into him in case he doesn't have trump but will call with a worse hand, thinking we are full of it, or would lay down a better hand cause he doesn't think we are full of it?
And......we know all this while playing how many tables at once?



[ QUOTE ]
Anyhow, I think this is an excellent use of bet/fold.

Jim

[/ QUOTE ]

I can see that you do.

Re: bet/fold vs check/call on the river
 

Judi:

the point of the clarkmeister is that you are usually behind, so adjust your mind to accept that fact that we are going to lose money on the river bets (whether check/calling or bet/calling or bet/folding). There are four cards to a flush out there, and our opponent is still hanging out, and in these type situations you tend to lose more than you win. Our goal is to lose the least when we're behind and win the most when we are ahead.

here's a simple example:

hero is BB with QJ
some folds, villain button raises, hero calls.

flop [4sb] QhJs2h
hero checks, villain bets, hero raises, villain calls.

turn [4bb] 7h
hero bets, villain calls

river [6bb] 5h


now let's say we have a decent read on villain's play, and we have a fairly accurate range that he's got:

a) a strong flush - A or K high
b) a weak flush
c) some made hand worse than yours: AJ, KJ, QT, KQ, 77, etc.
d) some POS that he isn't going to spend one more chip on

if you check/call, you are usually going to end up losing 1 bet to groups a and b, and winning nothing.

if you bet/call, you are usually going to end up losing 2 bets to group a (he'll raise you), 1 bet to group b, and you win 1 bet from group c.

group d is always irrelevant.

so if we throw some numbers in and say his hand range consists of 10% group A, 70% group b, and 20% group c, our EV looks like:

EV(check) = .1*-1 + .7*-1= -8
EV(bet) = .1*.2 + .7*-1 + .2*+1 = -0.48

as you can see betting is clearly best, given the particulars. even though you are probably going to lose (4:1 underdog in fact), it is correct to bet.

some things to look for in an opponent:
- he isn't so aggressive that he will try to steal the pot with his trash hands when you check to him on the river. In this case you may win enough from group d using the check/call line to make this line favorable.
- he tends to play a bit scared on scary boards without the nuts. If your opponent will raise you with a J high flush on the river, his group A will be significantly larger.

Re: bet/fold vs check/call on the river
 

jba,

I like the way you presented your opinion, however, your analysis is flawed by the incorrect math, i.e.:

[ QUOTE ]
EV(check) = .1*-1 + .7*-1= -8

[/ QUOTE ]

should be -.8

[ QUOTE ]
EV(bet) = .1*.2 + .7*-1 + .2*+1 = -0.48

[/ QUOTE ]

should be: .1*-2 + .7*-1 + .2*1 = -2.5
if we fold to the raise: .1*-1 +.7*-1 +.2*1 = -1.5

So, anyway you handle it after you bet, you lose more than I. In addition, you have distributed 100% to groups AB&amp;C, leaving out group D.
I assume you are calling the raise all of the time in order to not ignore the possibility of your opponent bluffing with a ck/raise with group C hands. I would give that a potential 3-5% of the time.

Re: bet/fold vs check/call on the river
 

[ QUOTE ]
jba,

I like the way you presented your opinion, however, your analysis is flawed by the incorrect math, i.e.:

[ QUOTE ]
EV(check) = .1*-1 + .7*-1= -8

[/ QUOTE ]

should be -.8


[/ QUOTE ]

got me there

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
EV(bet) = .1*.2 + .7*-1 + .2*+1 = -0.48

[/ QUOTE ]

should be: .1*-2 + .7*-1 + .2*1 = -2.5
if we fold to the raise: .1*-1 +.7*-1 +.2*1 = -1.5


[/ QUOTE ]

again I boned it, but then you did too, it's actually:

.1*-2 + .7*-1 + .2*1 = -.7

[ QUOTE ]

So, anyway you handle it after you bet, you lose more than I.

[/ QUOTE ]

look again

[ QUOTE ]
In addition, you have distributed 100% to groups AB&amp;C, leaving out group D.


[/ QUOTE ]

on purpose though:

[ QUOTE ]
group d is always irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is true because I stipulated that in these circumstances, he is not going to call with trash nor bluff with it (and in my things to look for in an opponent to take this line against, I tried to make that more clear).
any hand that villain holds on a river that is: worse than yours, will never call your bet, *and* never bluffs will never be a factor in your river decision

[ QUOTE ]

I assume you are calling the raise all of the time in order to not ignore the possibility of your opponent bluffing with a ck/raise with group C hands. I would give that a potential 3-5% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

the decision to call the raise or not is opponent and board dependant. I left it out to hopefully show you that even if you always pay off the raise, betting can be profitable in the right circumstances.

Re: bet/fold vs check/call on the river
 

[ QUOTE ]
again I boned it, but then you did too, it's actually:

.1*-2 + .7*-1 + .2*1 = -.7

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. For some reason I gave .1*-2 as -2.00

So, it's -.8 lost if I ck/call &amp; -.7 if I bet/call.
We are splitting hairs for 1/10 of a big bet, of which we did not take into account other important variables, such as: Opponents with hands in Group C, attempting on occassion to steal with a raise and those with Group B raising.
The above variables not taken into account, are variables working in our favor when we bet and not check as I proposed.
The only variable that works in our favor when we check, is when opponents with hands in group D bet after we check.

Now, since we took into account someone calling to see the river with low board pair &amp; an ace, who will not call the river, we have to account for what percentage of the time that is. If we say it is 8% of the time and distribute that between groups B&amp;C we get:

GroupA: 10% GroupB: 66% GroupC: 16% Group D: 8%

I will say that players with Group A hands will raise 100% of the time; Group B hands 8% of the time; Group C hands 5% of the time; Group D hands 2% of the time.

[.1*-2] + [-1*(.66*.92)+ -2*(.66*.08)] + [1*(.16*.95)+ 2*(.16*.05) + 1*(.08*.02) =
-.2 + [-1*.61] + [-2*.05] + [1*.15] + [2*.01] + negligble =

-.74 compared to -.8 when you check/call.

So, I agree that betting and then calling a raise is the optimum play, (It is only the optimum play when your opponent is at least going to call 100% of the time with hands in Group C) as even if you lose a neglible amount, you gain bets by people thinking you're a loose bettor on the river.

However, please note: My original disagreement was with Jim C., who stated: "You can easily fold to a raise."

jba, I thank you for your input, as it has taught me something valuable, however, how would the math turn out if players with hands in Group C folded 10% of the time?

Re: bet/fold vs check/call on the river
 

jba,

Now that I think about.......bet/calling has more -variables unknown than ck/calling, as we don't know if players in Group C might try &amp; steal it with a bet if we ck, plus some of those players in Group B, just might not have that much faith in their medium flush card to bet if you check.

So, I think your play is a gamble based upon too many variables.

Re: bet/fold vs check/call on the river
 

[ QUOTE ]
We are splitting hairs for 1/10 of a big bet

[/ QUOTE ]

welcome to limit holdem. this is what the game is all about.

how big of a mistake is it to call for a gutshot getting 9.5:1 effective odds? less than .1bb I would guess.

Re: bet/fold vs check/call on the river
 

[ QUOTE ]
However, please note: My original disagreement was with Jim C., who stated: "You can easily fold to a raise."

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that wasn't my statement, it was part of the explanation of the Clarmeister Theorem that I quoted.

I added that you need to have a read that your opponent won't raise without a flush in this situation. Without this read, you can't easily fold, and are probably better off not betting.

Jim