Value bet this river?

PantherZ · #1 11-12-2004, 12:52 AM

The opponent in this hand is loose/passive. My notes show that he plays any two broadway, any two suited, and any ace from any position.

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em (10 handed)

Preflop: PantherZ is SB with J[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img].
UTG folds, UTG+1 folds, UTG+2 folds, MP1 calls, MP2 folds, MP3 calls, CO folds, Button folds, PantherZ completes, BB checks.

Flop: (4 SB) K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (4 players)
PantherZ bets, BB folds, MP1 folds, MP3 calls.

Turn: (3 BB) 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (2 players)
PantherZ bets, MP3 calls.

River: (5 BB) 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (2 players)
PantherZ ???

PhatTBoll · #2 11-12-2004, 12:56 AM

Bet. Given your read, there are approximately 40 million worse hands your opponent will call with here.

Entity · #3 11-12-2004, 01:03 AM

Bet if you can fold to a raise (which you should, from a loose-passive).

Rob

PantherZ · #4 11-12-2004, 01:07 AM

So, the thinking here is that he will frequently call with worse hands (as PhatTBoll also pointed out), but if he raises then I can safely fold my hand?

Entity · #5 11-12-2004, 01:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So, the thinking here is that he will frequently call with worse hands (as PhatTBoll also pointed out), but if he raises then I can safely fold my hand?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yup. A loose-passive will call you down with lots of hands that you beat, and will only raise hands that beat you. They make is surprisingly easy to play poker. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Rob

PantherZ · #6 11-12-2004, 01:11 AM

Suppose the opponent in this hand was a tricky/aggressive player. Would it be better to check the river to induce a bluff or would you still value bet? If so, would you be more inclined to call a raise from this type of player?

Entity · #7 11-12-2004, 01:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Suppose the opponent in this hand was a tricky/aggressive player. Would it be better to check the river to induce a bluff or would you still value bet? If so, would you be more inclined to call a raise from this type of player?

[/ QUOTE ]
Against a tricky aggressive player who would bluff-raise this river, I'm check-calling. It sucks because they force me to abandon my normal line, but bet-calling would be incorrect unless they will bluff-raise more often than 12.5% of the time.

Rob

tewall · #8 11-12-2004, 03:51 PM

Yes, check-calling would be much better against a good player (I'm assuming tricky/aggresive = good). A good player won't be calling your river bet with a worse hand the requisite 55% to 60% of the time, but he might be induced to bluff, and a bluff raise is a real possibility.

ecooke · #9 11-12-2004, 01:18 AM

Everybody says bet and something about calling with worse hands. I say hm... check/call. For essentially the same reasons I stated in a similar thread regarding a four flush:

[ QUOTE ]
When you bet and he raises he's almost always going to have you beat. And if you are still ahead, he will likely fold fearing the flush. However, if you check into a four flush many players will bet with any holding as a bluff hoping your implied weakness in checking will cause you to fold. Therefore, you catch an extra bet when your opponent bluffs into you and save a bet when he has the flush.

[/ QUOTE ]
What's your line?

Entity · #10 11-12-2004, 01:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Everybody says bet and something about calling with worse hands. I say hm... check/call. For essentially the same reasons I stated in a similar thread regarding a four flush:

[ QUOTE ]
When you bet and he raises he's almost always going to have you beat. And if you are still ahead, he will likely fold fearing the flush. However, if you check into a four flush many players will bet with any holding as a bluff hoping your implied weakness in checking will cause you to fold. Therefore, you catch an extra bet when your opponent bluffs into you and save a bet when he has the flush.

[/ QUOTE ]
What's your line?

[/ QUOTE ]
Loose passive players don't bluff 4-straight river boards often enough for that line to be profitable. In addition, their trademark is calling when odds are against them.

Let's say that a loose-passive player has an ace 50% of the time here. Of the 50% of the time he doesn't have an ace, he's got a weaker King or a pair of 5's 30% of the time, and will call. The other 20% of the time he folds.

Of that 50%, whenever you bet, he'll raise. You lose 1BB 50% of the time betting, for a net loss of -.5BB.

30% of the time you bet and he calls with a worse hand. Net gain: +.3BB.

20% of the time you bet and he folds. 0EV.

Total EV of bet/folding is -.2BB.

If you check, he'll only bet with better hands, because loose-passive players don't bluff rivers like this very often. So 50% of the time, you lose 1BB, for a net loss of -.5BB.

He'd have to bluff-bet this river 30% of the time, consequently, for check-calling to have the same EV as bet/folding.

Does that make sense? Numbers may be off; I'm watching Saving Private Ryan.

Rob