An Interesting No Limit Question

[David Sklansky]

I could've posted this question on our Poker Theory or No Limit forums but since this forum is now attracting some bigshots that don't post elsewhere, I thought I'd pose it here.

It is an elementary precept of limit poker that you should not bet a decent hand, head up, on the river, if you know you won't get called unless you are beaten (unless of course there is some chance that bet will make an even better hand fold).

But there is an exception to this rule in No Limit. There is a situation, not all that rare, where it is right to bet on the river even though there is no chance of getting a better hand to fold OR getting a worse hand to call. In other words if they call your bet you will lose. Actually there are two situations. One is when you feel it is worth risking a bet to keep from having to show your hand. But that is not what I am speaking of here. Littleshots are free to answer as well.

[Ulysses]

When your opponent is likely to bluff w/ a worse hand w/ a bet you can't call if you check.

[theBruiser500]

[ QUOTE ]
When your opponent is likely to bluff w/ a worse hand w/ a bet you can't call if you check.

[/ QUOTE ]

$1k pot, opponent will bet $1k 50% of the time with a bluff and 50% of the time with a good hand. You could lead out $500 and find out for $500 not $1000 whether your hand is the best. Or you could check/call the opponents bet:

(leading out) .5($1000) + .5(-$500) = $250.
(check/calling) .5($2000) + .5($1000) = $500.

Or a more marginal situation, $1k is in the pot, 70% chance opponent bets $1k with a good hand and 30% chance $1k bluff.

(check/calling) .7(-$1000) + .3($2000) = -$100
(leading out) .7(-$700) + .3($1000) = -$190

Though you save the $300 when you are beat, you lose $1000 when you call his bluff. The bet has to be lower to be profitable, to see where it becomes profitable solve .7(x) + .3($1000) = 0 and x comes out to be about $200 to be barely profitable. In practice though this $200 bet won't do much. Am I missing important cases?

[theBruiser500]

bump

My analysis shows that in practice this lead out bet is so small that it won't really work in practice. I would think someone has something to say to that...

[theBruiser500]

YO THIS IS IMPORTANT DUDES

[rory]

You can bet out on the river to stop your opponent from bluffing. Sometimes it is better to bet out a moderate amount even if you know you will be beaten if they call because if you check and they bet a larger amount you will not know what to do.

[Ulysses]

Another possible answer, btw, is a blocking bet. But I don't think that applies given this part of David's statement - "there is no chance of getting a better hand to fold OR getting a worse hand to call."

When you make a blocking bet (for example, a medium flush on a paired flushed board), there usually exists a chance that your opponent will fold a bigger flush or call w/ a smaller one.

[Paul Phillips]

[ QUOTE ]
I could've posted this question on our Poker Theory or No Limit forums but since this forum is now attracting some bigshots that don't post elsewhere, I thought I'd pose it here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fuzzy thinking! If you lost a quarter on 37th avenue would you search for it on 38th avenue because the light is better?

And it's "who" don't post elsewhere. We're not furniture.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually there are two situations. One is when you feel it is worth risking a bet to keep from having to show your hand. But that is not what I am speaking of here.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that counts as a reason then I could make up all kinds of bizarre edge cases. How about if my opponent frequently raises the river but always folds to a re-raise unless he has the nuts. Or I'm dying to show the table the ridiculously thin value bets I'm always failing with. Or I just heard the guy only has six months to live and I feel like throwing some expectation his way to boost his spirits.

I could take a stab at a serious answer but I'd rather make fun of the idea that there are exactly two answers to this question and one of them is "it's worth risking a bet to keep from having to show your hand."

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
If that counts as a reason then I could make up all kinds of bizarre edge cases.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is light on chips, you're a big stack, you have 5% of each other's action and don't want him to bust.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Paul:

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
And it's "who" don't post elsewhere. We're not furniture.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come on Paul, you know we would never think of you in that way. Besides, you don't come in earth tones.

Best wishes,
Mason