Value bet this river?

[ecooke]

[ QUOTE ]
No, because in your math here, villain only has the straight (or a better hand) 25% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually no, sir, this is not correct. My numbers assume he has a better hand than KJ 50% of the time (overall) but only bets 25% of the time (also overall – when he has the straight). This seems reasonable to me.

Regardless, if your assumptions that the villain calls 50% of time with a hand that loses to KJ and only raises with the straight are valid - then bet/folding looks like a good line. I can't make any more concessions beyond that.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, because in your math here, villain only has the straight (or a better hand) 25% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually no, sir, this is not correct. My numbers assume he has a better hand than KJ 50% of the time (overall) but only bets 25% of the time (also overall – when he has the straight). This seems reasonable to me.

Regardless, if your assumptions that the villain calls 50% of time with a hand that loses to KJ and only raises with the straight are valid - then bet/folding looks like a good line. I can't make any more concessions beyond that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok -- our disagreement isn't in math, then, but in the interpretation of a loose-passive player and in how often he'll have a better hand than KJ that isn't a straight.

I think the basic summary of what I'm saying is this: if a loose-passive player won't bet hands that beat you here, he won't bet hands that you beat.

The whole basis for this is from Theory of Poker, and I'm surprised that you disagree with it as much as you do. If your opponent will call with more hands than he'll bet, then you should frequently bet the river. If he'll bet with more hands than he'll call with, you should check/call.

Loose-passive players call with more hands than they'll bet; that's implicit in their name. Bet/folding is the right line here. I think I've gone on too much debating this here when the numbers you've given don't support the way a loose-passive player plays.

Rob

[Jim T]

I think that he is saying that a large percentage of loose-passive players will just check the river here EVEN IF THEY MADE THEIR STRAIGHT. Maybe they are so afraid of a 6, they just check in turn.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that he is saying that a large percentage of loose-passive players will just check the river here EVEN IF THEY MADE THEIR STRAIGHT. Maybe they are so afraid of a 6, they just check in turn.

[/ QUOTE ]
I know that's what he's saying; I just disagree, based on my experience. I'd have to see someone checking the turn here 50% of the time to agree with his sentiment, and in my limited playing time, I haven't seen this.

Rob

[ecooke]

Well... no, not really. But it's a nice touch.
Entity is right that I'm talking about my interpretation of a typical opponent and he is talking about a Loose Passive opponent (which may also be his typical opponent, I have no idea). With that in mind, he is correct - betting is much better than checking against a Loose Passive opponent. However, as the likelihood that the villain will bluff increases, check/calling also becomes increasingly more correct (for the reasons I’ve been stating all along). This principle is also from the same section in the Theory of Poker Entity is referring to.
I'm sold - Bet/Folding is a better line in this situation.

[tewall]

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.