Hand to Talk About

[Double Play]

I like Mason's Non-bet on the River. Most people know he won the hand, therefore they are questioning his non-bet because he would have won more money on the end. I often see this play in 15-30 and higher stake games. You're either way ahead or you are way behind (losing to A,10). Yes, an extremely aggressive player would have bet, but what if you get raised? Then what? What if the second player bets and then the third raises? Then what!? Also, a non-bet keeps the game friendly. It says, "Okay, I know none of you hit your draws, so have a look at this hand and know that I sometimes will play differently from how you have me figured. And if next time I do bet on the River, you should be really, Really, REALLY afraid!" (It also allows you to bluff succussfully a little more!

Just my opinion.

DP

[The _Grifter]

" Okay, I know none of you hit your draws, so have a look at this hand and know that I sometimes will play differently from how you have me figured "

...That makes very little sense in the fact that Mason played the hand as if though he held A,9.

[Clarkmeister]

Kevin,

Mason isn't folding. And since the button didn't raise the turn, it is highly improbable that he will suddenly raise the river. So we are talking about one bet either way. I think we both agree that the player in between is obviously on a busted draw and is done with the hand.

This makes it simple IMO because the button will bet with almost no hands that are worse than Mason, and there seems to be zero "induce a bluff" equity given the action on the hand. He will, however call with all those same hands he would bet with and a whole slew of hands (AK, AQ, AJ, A2, heck, A-anything) that are worse due to the pot size.

So since Mason has to call a bet, and seems to be immune to a raise, betting becomes a very clear play once you look at the ratio of worse hands that will bet to worse hands that will call.

This is a case where it doesn't matter how often he is good when called because of the size of the pot involved. So we can disagree about the % all we want, but it really doesn't even matter in this spot. Regardless of the % he is good when called, he is certainly more of an underdog when he calls than when he is called. I think that my (relatively safe) assumption that he is insulated from a raise makes this fairly straightforward.

[Kevin J]

Clarky-

I agree with everything you're saying and if you read my above posts I like betting the river. All I'm saying is,

WHAT IF... His opponent's tendencies approach (or start to exceed) the point where he would be just as likely to check a better hand as to bet one? Betting is now NOT automatic, because Mason might be in a position of saving a bet a little more often than he could make another one.

But I'm nitpicking or at least trying to play the devil's advocate, because I agree that if you just use Bay's Theorum (and the pot size), there are enough worse hands that will pay Mason off here if he bets and I agree there's little reason to fear a raise. So bet...

I just have to test phrases like, "Betting's automatic", and "It's an EASY value bet", etc. There are times when these statements are true, but I don't think this is one of them.

[Mikey]

I didn't mean to sound rude.
I was reading what Mason had wrote and it seems to me that other players were not accounted for when he continued his post. I wrote Mason a personal message hoping that he didn't interpret my statement as discourteous.

I wanted to know what had happened to the other missing players.

Am I the only one that saw it this way?

[Dynasty]

The two unaccounted for players folded on the flop. Mason just didn't explicitly write it.

[bmw]

I think I would have bet on the river. The only hands that beat you are A-10 pocket As, 9s, 4s, or 2s. Since the raiser raised the flop I would have to think he didn't hit his three outer on the turn, so I could eliminate A-10. And, since he didn't four-bet the turn, I rule out any pocket pair. The player in the middle obviously missed his flush draw, but I think you are almost guaranteed a crying call by the raiser if you bet the river, IMO.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Piers:

The player in the small blind told me after the hand that he was also on a flush draw but didn't call for the two double sized bets on the turn.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Mikey:

While your comment is probably correct for most regular players at this limit, there are many non-regular, tourist types who do sit down. So it's not so easy to rule out the AT.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Everyone:

Let me go ahead and explain my reasoning for playing on the river as I did.

When the raise comes on fourth street, I don't have to have the best hand. I could be against a set, most likely deuces, or against AT. I could also be against hands that I have beat such as A2 or perhaps even AJ.

If I bet the river, I'll be called by every hand better than mine, but my opponent might fold some of the hands that I beat. He will also probably call me with some hands that I beat which he will not bet if I check. Thus it appears that I do better by betting.

But something else may happen if I check. The fourth street raiser may become confused by my play and not bet some of the hands that do beat me. Specifically, would all of you bet AT here. If that's the case, this should swing my play back to a check since now I will sometimes save a bet.

Of course, it all depends on who you are against, how you perceive them, and how you perceive they perceive you. Anyway, at the time, and I still think it's correct, I though my checking would freeze him from betting many of the hands that beat me given that I had made it three bets on the turn. Against a regular player, I think that this judgement would be wrong in almost all cases. But against a tourist type, who may not be completely comfortable in the game, the check probably works well enough that I should be willing to give up some calls.

Best wishes,
Mason