[New001]

This is a quote from the "77 against a PFR" thread from just recently, and it seems like the concept could very well apply here, too.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I'm still against the river bet. I think everyone would agree a bet will never fold a better hand, so you're essentially getting 1 to 1 on your money with a river bet. So you have to get called by a better hand more than 50% of the time for it to be profitable right? I can't see how you get called by a worse hand more ofen than you do by a better hand here. Does that make sense or am I missing something? (wouldn't be the first time)


[/ QUOTE ]


This is a classic case of needing to bet the river even if you think you are an underdog.

If you bet, you'll get called by Ax hands as well as bigger pocket pairs, whereas if you check, the pocket pairs will usually find a value bet but the Ax hands will usually check it through.

I don't see any particular reason to think that I'm behind on the river, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Edit: He's apparently passive postflop, too, making it less likely he'll raise with a worse hand and less likely he'll bet an AK or AQ when checked to, but more likely he'll call with one.