How pathetic of a river play was this...?

[Michael Davis]

"Those who think otherwise need to re-read TOP."

Boo.

-Michael

[1800GAMBLER]

The advice is intended for most of the people here who don't understand 'hands he will check behind with yet call a bet' while others here can better analyse the situation. Checkcalling on the river too much is a big mistake most 2+2ers make.

However i still think once you go 3 bets on the flop and bet the turn then check the river that missed draws don't wake up and bet, it rarely happens in my experience.

Inducing the bluff is a really overrated play. Take this hand again but lets say the flush draw didn't get there, betting out is FAR FAR better than inducing the bluff, if it's 50/50 he has a queen vs flush draw he would have to bluff the riiver 100% of the time here for it to equal betting out and i actually think it's more likely he has a queen.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In my experience, online players tend to bluff bet when checked to on the river far too often. Some of them are even stupid enough to bet hands that have showdown value like an unimproved AQ in situations where they will NEVER get called by a worse hand.

Is there some alternative way to exploit this tendency that I'm missing?

[/ QUOTE ]

For a good 30/60 player your sarcasm detection skills are
pretty weak. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I didn't understand GAMBLER's reply at all. First to act on the river is one of the more complicated situations in poker, especially when you're up against tricky/aggressive opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Boooo, Nate. Jay!'s response was superb as a general rule. The vast majority of the time, you will not be against a sophisticated/tricky/aggressive opponent on the river. Betting is FAR better than checking in most spots. Those who think otherwise need to re-read TOP.

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with this discussion is the same as when somebody says "Chuck Knoblauch is underrated" or something along those lines. We can't tell whether he's underrated until we know how we'll he's rated.

I'll try and post a couple of hands where I have borderline decisions on the river and we'll see how the forum digests them.

[Poker_pete]

You played the hand perfectly. Don't bet when you expect to be beaten. If you are not beaten, you give an aggressive player a chance to bluff. You also don't bet if you would hate to be raised.

[ITWASSOOOOTED]

The saying hindsight is 20/20 is certainly true. Much easier to analize this hand since we already know the results.
I don't think either play was pathetic. However, your statement "I'd have had to call a raise if I had bet" leads me to belive you should have bet out! You were already set to call a raise on the river so you obviously are not convinced he has a flush!

That being said, I would typically check on the riv when the flush draw hit!(with all previously mentioned factors present) It's already a decent sized pot so if I am ahead then its mine with the chance of getting another big bet, and if I am behind I only lose one BB. A river raise would make me think I am behind! And in this case, could cause me to fold the best hand!

p.s. this is my first reply on 2+2 and comments would be appreciated