Pushing it too much?

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Depending on the image the villain had of Ikke, is it not possible he could've played A-2 or A-3 similarly? Why is there an automatic assumption that he doesn't have an ace just because he raised the flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the opponent does have an ace, do you think he is going to check it on the river if you check?

[/ QUOTE ]

ding!

[vector2]

Well, if the villain has an ace and bets the river after hero checks, what would've been the difference from the hero betting and villain just calling as he's been doing? But, you also have the possibility that that villain improves and decides to raise hero after hero value bets the river. If hero has an ace, the river is an automatic bet. But with other holdings, I don't see how hero checking the river is significantly + or - EV.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Depending on the image the villain had of Ikke, is it not possible he could've played A-2 or A-3 similarly? Why is there an automatic assumption that he doesn't have an ace just because he raised the flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the opponent does have an ace, do you think he is going to check it on the river if you check?

[/ QUOTE ]

[mmcd]

But with other holdings, I don't see how hero checking the river is significantly + or - EV.

Better hands will always bet after you check (and against most players you have to call).

Worse hands may very well call, but will often just check behind if you check.

The only factor that weighs towards checking rather than betting here is the possibility of inducing a bluff which is highly unlikely given the previous action.

If you are behind, a bet is going in on the river either way.

If you are ahead, the only (plausible) way to get your opponent to put more money into the pot is to bet.


A river bet here is pretty elementary IMO.

[vector2]

But you're still not addressing the other two scenarios which are worse hands folding to a bet or better hands raising. His example is vaguely analagous to betting out on a flop vs. check-raising. Betting out will usually end in 1 bet or 3. Attemping a check-raise will you get 0 bets or 2. I think there's been enough discussion, Ikke. Post the results of the hand.

[mmcd]

worse hands folding to a bet

I said in my post that inducing a bluff is unlikely to work here. Also, you are rarely going to induce a thin value bet from a hand that would not call a river bet.

or better hands raising.

Given the betting in this hand, I think a raise is unlikely. Nontheless, whether his opponent raises a better hand on the river or not isn't really relevant to the discussion here. If his opponent's tendancy to bluff raise in this spot is lower than it should be, you just fold (sacrificing nothing but a little information). If it is higher than it should be, you call and gain extra value from the hand. If his bluff raising frequency is approximately correct, than calling or folding has 0 ev either way and betting out would affect only variance. Basically, he can cross that bridge when he comes to it. Assuming that his opponent will only raise a better a hand (as your question suggests), then he will only be giving up a chance to gain information (and this will only happen those times that his opponent was slowplaying on the flop or hit his gutshot/set/2 pair on the river.

[Ikke]

We all agree that there are only two real decisions in this hand. The flop 3-bet and the river check. There seems to be some consensus that the 3-bet has the potential of being a good one, whereas the river check is bad (or even "terrible").

Let's first focus on the river check. When I played the hand it was a classic example of choosing between value betting and inducing a bluff. Let it be clear: The thought of a better hand checking behind didn't cross my mind. So that wasn't why I checked.

Let's go through the hand. After he raises the flop he either has an ace, or some kind of pair or bluff or a draw. Let's ignore a pure bluff after he calls my 3-bet (and turn bet).

I do think the probability of him having an ace here was slightly reduced and favoured him having a draw or medium pair. So what pairs does he most likely have?

Considering the aggression level in this game (Paradise 40/80) I would think there would be a good chance he's capping pocket pairs equal or better than TT preflop. So my estimation was that IF he held a pair, it would be either a Q (most likely with flushdraw) or a 9 (which would likely be 98, 9T, maybe 9J (remember he raised UTG)).

I also think there is a good probability that these hands are going to pay me off on the river. So betting is better than checking there.

But I also think people underestimate the chances of him either valuebetting a Q or bluffing with a busted flush. I did show strength throughout the hand, but a river check either screams an upcoming check-raise or a given up bluff/semi-bluff attempt. Why on earth would I be check-calling here if I had an A or better?
So I think the chances of him betting a busted flushdraw are fairly good (at least larger than most of you think). Also, the chance he is raising the river should not totally be ignored.

IMO the largest part of the river check being good or bad comes down to the likelyhood of him having a flushdraw or a 9. I think it's a lot closer than Paluka and Clarkmeister suggest. But at the moment I think betting is slightly better.

What about the flop 3-bet?

Regards

[Ikke]

[ QUOTE ]
If his opponent's tendancy to bluff raise in this spot is lower than it should be, you just fold (sacrificing nothing but a little information). If it is higher than it should be, you call and gain extra value from the hand. If his bluff raising frequency is approximately correct, than calling or folding has 0 ev either way and betting out would affect only variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

And can I use Google to get those percentages?

Regards

[mmcd]

And can I use Google to get those percentages?

Yeah, just type in "Feel AND Read"

[Ikke]

;-)

Seriously though; you have about as much information about this player as I had. He seemed a typical shorthanded aggro player. I only had played a few hands before with him.

So would you call a river raise getting 1:11.5?

Regards

[mmcd]

No reads, probably not. That 7 on the river was a complete blank, and with your lead 3-bet on the flop, I don't think a bluff-river raise would be that feasible. My guess would be that if this guy wanted to make a play for the pot, he'd have done it on the turn. I think as a default, most players don't bluff raise enough in this situation (probably because it rarely works).

You said in your last post something along the lines of "why would I ever check an Ace in this situation?"

If you have him on a busted draw and are trying to induce a bluff, what difference does your handstrength make?


Personally, I think it's more likely that he's on a 9 or a pocket pair than a flush draw. And even if he was on a flush draw, there's no guarantee he'll bluff at it. Maybe it's just me, but when I see this type of betting in a hand, I fully expect the first player to call a river bet after he checks. He either has a decent hand and he's trying to induce a bluff, or he has a so so hand with some showdown value and he's hoping to show down for free. Either way, I think a river bet is getting called, and a savvy player will realize that and not bet his J-high.