Do I bet this river?
 

5/5 blinds NL at Foxwoods. UTG is a tricky aggressive player who has trouble making laydowns. He has about $9k and I have him covered. I have a TAG image and have gotten KK 3 times in the last hour. I get KK on the cut-off with 4 limpers and raise to 50, two callers including UTG. Flop is 2 4 9 rainbow. Two checks to me and I bet 250. UTG smooth-calls which is abnormal (he rarely calls, normally always jamming the pot) so I immediately put him on a flopped set. The turn comes a king and the board is still rainbow. He makes a comment like "I don't think I like that card" and checks. Now I'm sure he has a set and is worried I have KK- I bet $1000 and he calls. The river comes a 4. He checks.
I now have a serious problem with betting the river-since I put him on a set, he could easily have rivered quads here but if he has 99 I can take a decent amount off him. I'm worried about exposing myself to a check-raise here-should i bet this river and if so, how much?

Re: Do I bet this river?
 

Hey Foxwoods,

I think this is the best hand I've seen posted in forever. I don't know my "answer" yet, but here is my take. To make betting incorrect, you must make some very strong assumptions about your opponent. But, I really think that those strong assumptions might be met. Not sure yet, though...

Can't wait to see what others think.

ML4L

Re: Do I bet this river?
 

Seems like an easy bet to me. He could 99, 44 or 22. There are 6 combos of hands you beat and 1 combo of hands you don't beat. He will be glad to get money in with all 7 hands.

Re: Do I bet this river?
 

I think betting is mandatory. You cant be afraid of the quads here, even if they are possible. His check call on the river could simply be a slowplay especially with no draws on the board. His comment could be a ploy.

I think I would bet pot as he is likely to call. If he comes back over the top, well then it gets ugly. I would probably still end up calling because he could likely reraise with the set as well as quads. It depends how good a player he is.

Re: Do I bet this river?
 

i bet and probably fold to a raise. there is little chance he would bluff in this situation, and even less he could have a bluffing hand. and since none of the hands you beat would think about c/r the river after that turn card and his comment, i fold to a significant raise.

Re: Do I bet this river?
 

[ QUOTE ]
i bet and probably fold to a raise. there is little chance he would bluff in this situation, and even less he could have a bluffing hand. and since none of the hands you beat would think about c/r the river after that turn card and his comment, i fold to a significant raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand this line of thinking but disagree. I would definitely bet the river but i would never fold to a raise. As a matter of fact, i would overbet the river to the point where you are pot commited. You might even want to move in (especially against a opponent who has trouble laying down hands). If your opponent has a full house he will probably call. There are rare exceptions against ultra conservative players, but here is why you must not fold here very often:
1. You have the second nuts!
2. YOur opponent might have misread you here and may try to take you off a hand like aces, or AK. Granted, this won't happen often, but it does happen.
3. It is much more likely (statistically) that he has one of the other sets
4. If you are not willing to lose your stack with this hand, it should not be on the table.
5. Opponents will call in this game with other full houses.
6. you have the second nuts!

Re: Do I bet this river?
 

um.. stacks are 9k. you dont want to overpet the pot or move in.. that defeats the purpose of a bet because some players WILL fold a fullhouse lesser than yours. if you are betting, you want to be called by worse hands.

Re: Do I bet this river?
 

you cant just play the strength of your own hand. you have to figure out your opponents range of hands if he check raises the river. in a normal 10/20 game, his range is pretty small, and probably can be limited pretty confidently to 44. whether or not folding to his raise is correct (its at least debateable), the reasons you mentioned for wanting to get all in with these stack sizes are a bit off.

your bet amount should be the maximum amount that other boats will call. there is an upper limit to this amount. i would suspect it is nothing larger than the pot here, and might even be around 2000.

Re: Do I bet this river?
 

Why the heck are stacks sooooooo deep?!? 1800X BB for villain and hero has him covered.

I say bet $2,000 on the river. You said in the original post that villain had trouble folding good hands, so he should easily call that much with a smaller boat.

Sly

Re: Do I bet this river?
 

I think most people are missing the point of this point, which is does it make sense to bet a significant amount knowing that if I get check-raised I probably have to muck? I'd say villain will muck even 99 if I overbet the pot as that would be a confirmation of his read that I have KK(a tight player betting 1k and then 2k doesn't indicate AK, but KK). He has trouble making laydowns but he also has a read on me in this hand. Anyway, I would like to see fewer posts about how he will probably call if I bet hard and more about what size bet makes sense given the vulnerability to a check-raise. Clearly there is a trade-off between getting the most I can out of him and not exposing myself to his re-raise if he has quads. So do I bet and how much is still the issue, not "if I have nothing to worry about from villain's hand and he has a sucker house how much can I get out of him?" I think most responses are downplaying the extent to which my hand is vulnerable and can not hold up if significant action occurs. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.
P.S. Stacks are so deep because he sat down with 9K and I wanted to have him covered. This was over the summer before Foxwoods got the minimum thousand dollar buy-in table going.

Re: Do I bet this river?
 

Assuming your read is right, there is a 1 in 7 chance you are beat, although it still seems like a very odd way for an "aggressive" player to be playing his set OOP. At any rate, the amount of money you will gain if he has a smaller full and calls outweighs the -EV if he happens to have you beat, I think its pretty much that simple. If you dont think he would c/r all-in with any other hand than 44, you can fold. Maybe you dont think you can bring yourself to fold Kings full even if you feel its correct and thats the point of this post. Even if that were so, betting is still +EV assuming he'll call, say $1500, with any boat.

Re: Do I bet this river?
 

If he pot bets this river do you call?....probably yes

If he overbets this river do you call?....


i am guessing you bet and he raised and you called...he had quad 4's.....

I think you have to bet pot, if he raises then fold, he's got to be super balzy to reraise bluff if he has such a good read on you as you stated, he would also need to know and respect you graatly to try this type of bluff.

B9

What does the villain want you to think?
 

The question that I have for you is this: you are pondering not betting based largely because of his comment of "I don't like that card" when the K turned. You think that he knows that you have KK because he said that he didn't like the K on the turn.

Now, if he KNEW that the K on the turn made your trips then obviously it would be a -EV play for him to announce that (admittingly I don't play at these stakes but when I know my opponent's hand I surely don't announce it!) to you. Therefore at best we can assume that his comment that "that I don't like that card" was meant to induce some sort of tell out of you. Did you exhibit such a tell? Or do you believe that your action on the turn (and projected river action) rule(d) out AA, AK, and QQ meaning that although his comment was an attempt to get a read, your action would confirm his read?

Because of my experience with dishonest poker players I would say that his comment was made to try to get you to REPRESENT trip Ks (however this would be because he had flopped a set and possibly rivered quads) but not because he actually believed that you had them.

Moreover, If he said something to the effect of "I don't like that card" wouldn't that also mean that he would think that you would think that he thought that you held KK and therefore would play AA, AK, or maybe QQ as if you had KK (for that is what his comment makes you think that he thinks that you hold) thus making you want to play AA, AK, and QQ in a way that would represent KK and thus pay off to his flopped set? If this is the case I think you should bet as if you are representing KK, which is what you have, so I would value bet here because betting KK is really representing AA, AK, or QQ which is representing KK. (assuming he doesnt have quads this is why you will get a big value bet paid off because his comment was made to induce action from lesser hands... plus he has 9s full)


If you are as confident as you seem to be with your reads here I feel that you must make a value bet and muck to a reraise for the reasons discussed in other posts or, my perfered line of action, pot commit yourself with a bet of around 3.5k and call an all in ( I, being a mere mortal - and a lesser poker player, will pay off my whole stack to quads here every time)


I hope that this response is clear, you might have to reread it a few times to understand what I am trying to say, but I think that it is worded correctly.

What i am asking the poster is:
-What does the villain think that you have (and would he honestly make that comment if he really thought you had KK)
-What was the purpose of making that comment? (what action is he trying to induce? does he think that you will think it is an honest comment and therefore how does he think you will play AA, AK, QQ, and KK)
-What does he think that you think that he holds? (Does he realize that you will put him on an underset with that comment and is that his intention?)
-Would he REALLY check quads here? If I was at the table for this hand and saw quads and kings full go check-check on the river I would be at the cage before the dealer sent the next cards into the air.

Re: What does the villain want you to think?
 

[ QUOTE ]


Because of my experience with dishonest poker players I would say that his comment was made to try to get you to REPRESENT trip Ks (however this would be because he had flopped a set and possibly rivered quads) but not because he actually believed that you had them.


[/ QUOTE ]
There is no doubt he is putting me on KK but is uncertian in his read. He called on the off chance I'm betting AK. But if he thinks he's getting me to represent KK, why would he check the river? He's called substantial flop and turn bets and he would be worried I would give up on the hand in light of this. So if he doesn't put me on KK he bets the river.
I think this whole idea that he's trying to get me to bluff is off the mark because he wouldn't count on me bluffing the river.


[ QUOTE ]

value bet and muck to a reraise for the reasons discussed in other posts or, pot commit yourself with a bet of around 3.5k and call an all in

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would you ever pot commit yourself in a situation where he would fold an inferior house for such a big bet (he is aware of how tight and solid a player I am) and I would lose 8k or so if he's beating me?

results
 

I bet 500 on the river, he calls and flips over 99. I know 500 seems odd but the thinking was it was small enough for him to have to call even if he suspects I have KK (I can't be sure how much will blow him out of the water) while at the same time limiting the damage if he check-raises. I figured it signifies to villain that I'm not willing to call too much if he does have quads while possibly inducing a re-raise with 99 or 22. This way I don't have to fold to a raise so I get both the chance of him putting more money in with a weaker house c/r and limit the losses if he has quads.
Does anybody like this ridiculous underbet?

Re: results
 

i dont. i think he will raise with an underhouse a very small portion of the time. you are underbetting so you can call a raise, but i think calling the raise is still -EV even with your bet size.

i also think betting larger is more +EV. i would estimate that the player you described would pretty often call 1500. maybe even 2000. i would pause a good amount of time on the river however, trying to sell the fact you MAY be trying to make a very thin value bet

Re: Do I bet this river?
 

If he has a set on the river there are 3 ways each it can be 99 or 22 and only one way it can be 44; so if you KNOW he has a set you are a 6:1 favorite. Combine that with the uncertaintly of a set and the fact that he hasn't bet at all in this hand, I think you should gleefully try to put in all your money. Bet and HOPE he raises.

- Louie

Re: Do I bet this river?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If he has a set on the river there are 3 ways each it can be 99 or 22 and only one way it can be 44; so if you KNOW he has a set you are a 6:1 favorite. Combine that with the uncertaintly of a set and the fact that he hasn't bet at all in this hand, I think you should gleefully try to put in all your money. Bet and HOPE he raises.

- Louie

[/ QUOTE ]

no [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] some of the other posts above explain why this is wasting money.

Re: yuck
 

I hate it. $500 smells so weak that he could re-raise all-in here and put you to the test. I think you left money on the table here because of this fear of quads.

But what do I know, I don't try to make the Hellmuthian laydowns...

Sly

Re: results
 

[ QUOTE ]
Does anybody like this ridiculous underbet?

[/ QUOTE ]

nope. i think he calls more with 99 or 22, and will almost never bluff raise. there are only two ways this bet could be a good idea: if you weren't planning on folding to a c-r of a more reasonably sized bet, or if you thought a wierdplayed ak or aa might call for the 500.

personally, i like a quick bet of 2000, hoping he calls with the same speed, not giving the idea of thinking to him by taking time yourself.

My Take
 

Hey Foxwoods,

Here is my take on the hand. And, FWIW, I've given this a ton of thought and am almost positive that I'm right (can't wait for Ray et al. to disagree with me now that I've said that... [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]).

The greater the skill level of your opponent, the more reasonable checking becomes. There are two reasons for this. One is that a skilled opponent will be able to lay down his boat some percentage of the time when facing a bet. Throw the pot odds out the window. What hand other than KK puts in a big bet on the river here, given the previous action? The second reason is that a skilled opponent is going to check-raise bluff (with his 99/22) some percentage of the time. He knows what you have. More importantly, he knows what you DON'T have. And, he knows that you know that he COULD have quads. But, what percentage of the time will an opponent bluff here? I don't know, and neither do you. Meaning that, whether you decide to call a check-raise or fold to it, you have the potential to be making a HUGE mistake. Though it won't happen often, the magnitude of the mistake that you might be forced to make, coupled with the fact that you won't even always get paid off when your hand is good, might mean that you check.

But, it does not appear that your opponent fits this description perfectly. First, you already know that he has trouble laying down hands. Second, if he were good enough to lay the hand down, wouldn't he do it (or at least consider it) on the turn? So, the fact is, it looks like the opponent is calling a moderate bet on the river almost every time. Given that it is 6-1 that he does NOT have quads, you give up too much by checking behind here.

So, how much to bet? IMO, the larger the bet, the more likely it is that your opponent folds. And, as you pointed out, the larger you bet, the larger his possible check-raise, the larger the pot, and thus the larger the mistake that you might make. So, you want to extract as much value as possible without opening yourself to a decision for your entire stack. I think the best amount is an even $1000 or so (the pot has $2660 before you bet). I think that a little more is fine, as is a little less. I think that any amount much larger than $1500 is a mistake, with the magnitude of the mistake increasing with the size of the bet.

So, to answer your question, I like the bet amount OK. Sort of a "blocking bet" in position... I think you could have accomplished the same thing by betting a little more, but what you did is better than checking and far better than betting $2000 or so. It was a tough spot to be in at the table, so I think you handled it well.

Nice hand, and great post.

ML4L

Re: Do I bet this river?
 

You were obviously spooked by the size of the pot, you pansy.

Re: Do I bet this river?
 

you have the nut full and an opponent squarely on a hand he'll call with. bet the pot. more if he'd call more. do not underbet unless you think he'll really lay down second or third full for the extra money.

matt

The Thought Process
 

Hey all,

I don't think that most posters who replied truly understand the implications of stack depth, image, and hand reading here and how those things affect the river play, so here is a little more about that.

The stacks here are 900 times the sum of the blinds. If you are a 1/2 player, imagine playing with $2,700 stacks. If you are a 5/10 player, imagine playing with $13,500 stacks. I'd guess that those numbers are greater than some players' entire bankrolls for those limits...

Now, let's look at the hand, street by street. When the flop comes rainbow rags, Hero's bet signals overpair. When UTG flat-calls, it signals set or that he doesn't believe that Hero has an overpair. When the K comes on the turn, Hero will almost always check a hand other than a set. So, when Hero bets, it signals KK. It is clear that UTG is thinking this as well, as he doesn't raise the turn, and he doesn't lead the river to try to get value out of an AK/AA that bet the turn and would check the river. It is also clear at this point that UTG has a set. So, at this point, both players know what the other is holding.

Now, on the river, I guarantee the guy with 99 isn't thinking, "Awesome, I have a boat, I want to get all-in." He knows that the 4 changes nothing. He is still behind KK. Any river call that he makes is going to be a crying call. 1/2 players, would you make a crying call for $600? 5/10 players, would you make a crying call for $3000? If you are a winning player, I highly doubt it. So, why assume that UTG would gladly call $2000 here with his boat? And, the thought of his check-raising 99/22 here as anything other than a bluff is absolutely ridiculous. Is a tight, aggressive player going to call thousands of dollars here with an overpair or AK (the ONLY things that UTG can beat)?

At the same time, look at the position that Hero is in. Yes, he has the second nuts. But, just as UTG rightfully fears KK, Hero should rightfully fear 44. And here is the crucial thing: because the situation is SO transparent to both parties, UTG should be able to bluff check-raise the correct percentage of the time. If he check-raises the pot 1/12 of the time that he has 99/22 (all he has to do is look at the minute hand of his watch, and if it's between the 12 and 1, raise it up), Hero is faced with a break-even decision of whether to call the raise or fold (assuming that UTG would also check-raise the pot with 44).

So, here is the math. Assuming that Hero checks behind, he averages $2280 on the hand (he will win the pot 6/7 of the time). Now, let's assume that he bets $1500 on the river. He wins $4160 every time that he is called, $2660 every time that is he is not, and loses $1500 3/14 of the time (this is how often he will be check-raised). If UTG is going to call less than 34.1% of the time, then Hero is better off checking the river. So, the moral is that, against a good player who will check-raise bluff some percentage of the time and who will not pay off a significant bet here, you check the river. It isn't even necessarily important that UTG bluff the "correct" percentage of the time, because I don't think one can guess whether UTG will bluff too often or not often enough and thus cannot take advantage of his incorrect frequency.

But, as we established, it is probable that Hero will be called here. So, he bets. But, hopefully people can see that, against a very skilled opponent, you check the river here. And, even against an unskilled opponent, you need to bet an amount that he is going to call, or betting is a mistake. It is better, IMO, to undershoot than overshoot, which is why I think that somewhere around $1000 is the best amount.

So, I would urge players in these spots not to be blinded by their own hand or use logic such as "I have the second nuts. If I go broke, that's just how it goes." That is NOT how one plays deep stack poker.

Hope this helps.

ML4L

Re: The Thought Process
 

If he thinks that hero has KK, he would've folded the turn. As someone has already stated, when the villain says 'i dont like that card,' he is just trying to get a reaction. If he put hero squarely on KK, he wouldnt say anything.

Re: The Thought Process
 

[ QUOTE ]
But, hopefully people can see that, against a very skilled opponent, you check the river here. And, even against an unskilled opponent, you need to bet an amount that he is going to call, or betting is a mistake. It is better, IMO, to undershoot than overshoot, which is why I think that somewhere around $1000 is the best amount.

[/ QUOTE ]

meta-hand consideration: i don't think hero, if he is thinking intelligently, reaches in his pocket/cashbox to buy to cover 1800bb's against a player who won't call $2000 here with 99 or 22. otherwise, hero is much better off playing a "short" stack of, say, 600bb's or so.

Re: Do I bet this river?
 

i agree with this although i would have used "pussy"

Re: The Thought Process
 

Precisely what I was going to say. If this player is good enough to think about check-raise bluffing with an overfull, or laying down an overfull to a bet on the river, why on earth would you want to be playing with 1800 bb's against him? I highly doubt there were other players at the table stacked so deep. Even more so, if he is that good, why play 1-2? I dont think situations come along very often where hed be given the opportunity to play this deep with someone. Even so, I like ML4L's post quite a bit. I probably would have potted it though, and expected a call from any boat. I dont think hed consider bluff raising, principally because I dont think hed give our hero credit for being able to lay down KK, so even with the insane odds, I would probably fold to a raise.

-Evan

Re: The Thought Process
 

[/ QUOTE ] I dont think he would consider bluff raising, principally because I dont think he would give our hero credit for being able to lay down KK, so even with the insane odds, I would probably fold to a raise.

-Evan

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is very good thinking. Would anyone really lay down KK enough of the time here to a check-raise to make it profitable, simply because you know that he knows you don't have quads?

Just because you know someone else doesn't have the nuts doesn't mean they will lay down to a large bet...

Re: Do I bet this river?
 

boy i wish i was the one with the Ks full and 9k on the table. You coulda just given the guy 2000 dollars as a gift if you really wanted to be nice.

Bet the pot. I really dont think hes going to fold 99 or 22 here.

Re: Do I bet this river?
 

I suppose the logic of betting the pot stands if everyone at the table is completely oblivious to what's going on. The fact is there's near-perfect transparency, we both know what the other one has (except i have three possibilities) and yes, he does know I'm capable of making a laydown there with KK. If he knows I'm putting him on a set then it's a pretty easy check-raise bluff opportunity and if he moved all in I would indeed have mucked. Thus, given the possibility of him folding if I bet heavy as his read of my KK would be confirmed and the fact that he could easily push me off KK here, I don't understand how people are still advocating such large bets. ML4L is right on this one, and I suppose that at a low enough level of play it always makes sense to get your chips in here but villain and I are both good enough that you just can't say "I'm willing to put 9k in to this pot and hope that all he has is 99 or 22 and if I go broke, well-I couldn't have done anything about it. I mean, full house versus quads never happens, right?"

Re: Do I bet this river?
 

AJo and petefabrizio-I don't know who you two are but if you think I'm such a pussy I'll play you heads-up any time for any amount of money.

Re: Do I bet this river?
 

i still think that if you can't be happy making a pot-sized value bet vs. him with the second nuts, when its 6-1 that you're ahead based on a read, you shouldn't have bought this deep.

Re: Do I bet this river?
 

[ QUOTE ]
AJo and petefabrizio-I don't know who you two are but if you think I'm such a pussy I'll play you heads-up any time for any amount of money.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, i think you're probably joking, but i do know who you are, and i know for a fact that you won't.

Re: yuck
 

[ QUOTE ]
I hate it. $500 smells so weak that he could re-raise all-in here and put you to the test. I think you left money on the table here because of this fear of quads.

But what do I know, I don't try to make the Hellmuthian laydowns...

Sly

[/ QUOTE ]

I seem to remember hearing about a hand where Hellmuth paid off Tobey MacGuire with KK on a AAAxx board in some tournament. So I don't even think Phil would lay this one down.

Re: yuck
 

well, i saw phil lay down an ace on a 66A6A board at UB. And he was right.

Re: Do I bet this river?
 

I think the math here is easy. Say you bet 2000, and he calls with 22 and 99, and raises all in with 44. There are 6 ways he can have 22 and 99, and 1 way he can have 44.

(6*2000 - 1*7300)/7= $671

So even if you only bet 2000 (the pot is like 3000), and you call every time he moves in, you still come out up 671 on average.

And there's no way hes folding 22 or 99 for 2000 on the river after he called off 1000 in a 500 dollar pot. No way.

Re: Do I bet this river?
 

Wow. Great thread. Worth popping my cherry I think....

If Villain knows you have kk why would he call your bet with a one outer? Either there is considerable doubt or he's looking for a chance to bluff the river. The river either gave him his quads or gave him his chance to bluff. If he called for a chance to bluff, then won't he bluff that card just about every time since he is 100% certain you have kk and are capable of letting it go? If thats the case, you should check every time. Why make a weak bet that screams "I'm gonna fold if you raise enough."

How many of us would call an overbet with a one outer unless they were going to try and steal if another two or four hits? If he is that tricky then check behind.

On the other hand, I think Villain has serious doubts about your holdings. For that reason you bet more, especially since he has a problem letting go of hands.

So, it depends on your read of Villain. Would he call for a chance to bluff(giving him six more outs)? If not, he's not sure about your kk and he's paying off a decent bet the six out of seven times that his quads don't hit.

Well, my brain hurts and I don't think that solved anything.

Re: The Thought Process
 

Hi ML4L -

Regarding stack size in relation to the blinds. As you stated, the stacks are extremely deep. However, I do not think it is fair to compare this situation to a 1/2 player playing with a $2700 dollar stack. The players involved in this hand seem to be higher stake players playing a lower stake game, rather than two guys who placed their entire bankrolls on the table and are playing with scared money.

[ QUOTE ]
So, why assume that UTG would gladly call $2000 here with his boat?

[/ QUOTE ]


1. The OP stated that his opponent has trouble laying down a hand. This tells me that UTG would call more than 34.1 % needed in your example.

2. If UTG really believed hero had KK and he is capable of laying down a hand, he would have done it on the turn when he believed he only had one out.

The 4 on the turn made it much more likely UTG is holding 99 or 22. I would make the $2000 bet and be confident I would be called.


SF

Re: Do I bet this river?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm worried about exposing myself to a check-raise here-should i bet this river and if so, how much?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exposing yourself to a checkraise? Okay, I'll humor you on that one. what is is like 5 or 6-1 that he has Quads? More likely given your read that he has 99 or 22. And for what its worth, He really puts you on KK? and CALLED the $1000.00 turn bet? WHY?

If you're scared get a dog, and bet two stacks of green. Though I probably bet between a dime and $1500.00 to assure that I get a call.