Was I suppose to value bet?

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
This is dangerous thinking. Depending on the river action, you can't expect to show a profit bet/calling on this river. If you can't fold to a raise (which I'm pretty sure the OP can't do or else he would have bet), you need to check and call.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, we can't bet/fold for a bet that's for sure. And if you believe we're beaten often enough to not make a profit bet/calling than check/calling is the way to go. But at a loose table I think we will show a profit bet/calling (as everybody else here I really respect your point of view but this time I think you're wrong).

Assume we'll get 2 callers if we bet (likely) we'll have to be behind 50% or more to make check/calling correct (I don't think we'll induce a bluff very often). I'm pretty sure we're ahead way more than 50% of the time.

EDIT: That's assuming we'll get raised by a better hand.

[Shillx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
we aren't going to get raised by a worse hand

[/ QUOTE ]
You aren't folding to a raise? Against fishes calling this river for one bet would be easy. Hugh pot!

[/ QUOTE ]

This is dangerous thinking. Depending on the river action, you can't expect to show a profit bet/calling on this river. If you can't fold to a raise (which I'm pretty sure the OP can't do or else he would have bet), you need to check and call.

Brad

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do we have to be willing to fold if we bet? The pot is huge and the board paired. I find .50/1 players often play much worse and more aggressive when the board pairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why didn't they bet after then hero checked then? A loose-passive isn't going to raise the river with a worse hand then us. If he won't even bet top pair when we check to him, how in the world is he going to bluff-raise us?

[Wario]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
we aren't going to get raised by a worse hand

[/ QUOTE ]
You aren't folding to a raise? Against fishes calling this river for one bet would be easy. Hugh pot!

[/ QUOTE ]

This is dangerous thinking. Depending on the river action, you can't expect to show a profit bet/calling on this river. If you can't fold to a raise (which I'm pretty sure the OP can't do or else he would have bet), you need to check and call.

Brad

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do we have to be willing to fold if we bet? The pot is huge and the board paired. I find .50/1 players often play much worse and more aggressive when the board pairs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why didn't they bet after then hero checked then? A loose-passive isn't going to raise the river with a worse hand then us. If he won't even bet top pair when we check to him, how in the world is he going to bluff-raise us?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's still pretty unlikely for them to bet/raise their hand but I think it's more likely now that the board has paired.

We'd be getting about 14 or 15-1. In my experience at .50/1 I think Hero will be good easily more than 1 in 14 times.

[SeeWillie]

Shillx, I am interested in your reasoning on the bet/fold line. The mantra on this forum seems to be "call one BB on the river." I recognize that calling for one BB BET is different from calling a one BB RAISE, but without aggresson on the earlier streets telling us villain has a premium hand, why not bet/call?

FWIW, I think I have been calling down a bit too much in the face of aggression on the turn, but was pretty confident about calling down on the river.

[DMBFan23]

as an independent subquestion,

what hands do you think villain will raise with? what hands do you think he'll call with? both of those leading to...

how often will he raise if we bet? how often will we be good if raised?


My thoughts, in white, in case people want to do some math on this
<font color="white">without doing the bayes (too many calling hands to do the damn distributions of, lol) I assure you that we lose if raised, but we don't get raised often enough to make the first bet bad, even if we go into the betting situation knowing we are going to fold to the raise. </font>

[Shillx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is dangerous thinking. Depending on the river action, you can't expect to show a profit bet/calling on this river. If you can't fold to a raise (which I'm pretty sure the OP can't do or else he would have bet), you need to check and call.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, we can't bet/fold for a bet that's for sure. And if you believe we're beaten often enough to not make a profit bet/calling than check/calling is the way to go. But at a loose table I think we will show a profit bet/calling (as everybody else here I really respect your point of view but this time I think you're wrong).

Assume we'll get 2 callers if we bet (likely) we'll have to be behind 50% or more to make check/calling correct (I don't think we'll induce a bluff very often). I'm pretty sure we're ahead way more than 50% of the time.

EDIT: That's assuming we'll get raised by a better hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bet/calling this river is foolish most of the time. But not all raises are created equal, which is the main thing you have to take into account if it gets raised. Assume you know nothing about the suspects in the hand except that they are loose-passive.

For example:

The action goes Hero bets, call, fold, check-raise. Making this call is throwing away a big bet.

How about if the action goes Hero bets, fold, raise, fold. Calling might be a viable option in this spot, but it is still probably -EV. Clearly, making this call is much better then the first.

In general when you are "value betting" you have to give it up if someone raises you. This is even more true when the pot is protected and/or the raise is via a check/raise.

Brad

[GrunchCan]

[ QUOTE ]
what hands do you think villain will raise with?

[/ QUOTE ]

Any flush, set, or straight. Sometimes a bluff. Even loose-passives bluff sometimes.

[ QUOTE ]
what hands do you think he'll call with?

[/ QUOTE ]

Any piece of the board that doesn't raise. Some unpaired A hands hoping to catch a bluff.

So basically, almost every time hero bets and there is no raise, Hero wins. Almost every time hero bets and there is a raise, Hero loses.

The question becomes, how often will an opponent bluff raise, and how likely is it that someone has completed thier draw?

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
MP2, CO, and SB are fish.

[/ QUOTE ]
No reads on them beeing passive. Fishes can easily bluff this river.

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
as an independent subquestion,

what hands do you think villain will raise with? what hands do you think he'll call with? both of those leading to...

how often will he raise if we bet? how often will we be good if raised?


My thoughts, in white, in case people want to do some math on this

[/ QUOTE ]
Without looking on your thoughts (I'll do after writing this) is that fishes could easily bluff when the board pairs and a 3rd flushcard appears. If they bluff 7% we'll make a profit by calling. I'm sure we need to call a raise .

[Shillx]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
MP2, CO, and SB are fish.

[/ QUOTE ]
No reads on them beeing passive. Fishes can easily bluff this river.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why the term "fish" should be abolished. What the [censored] does it mean? Loose-passive? Chip-spewing? Folds to a river raise no matter what he has and how big the pot is? Doesn't look at his cards before playing? If fish = losing player then it is hard to comment on this hand because losing players come in all shapes and sizes.

"Fish" in the classical sense means loose-passive and most forum members will agree with this. Anyone who uses this term should a) stop using it and b) understand that I view a "fish" as a loose-passive player and should read my posts as such.

Brad