AJ hits 2nd pair, should I have bet the river?

[tomcain]

I think you missed a raise PF. I have largely come to the conclusion that betting on the river is OK here. I used to check a lot more. It really depends on any reads and how many people are left. In this case, however, I would check the river. The K on the board is still a problem and the 3-flush.

Tom

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
Fold to any river raise. What would they raise with that you are beating. The only answer would be an outright bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am inclined to agree, but it's a tough fold against an unknown when we'd be getting 12.5 to 1 to call one back (and better if UTG calls the raise). If I saw a raise from MP2, the only real hands I could give any credence to are flushes and funky two pairs. Is MP2 willing to bluff ~8% of the time in this situation?

Is this a situation where you can only bet if you're willing to fold to a raise? If not, is betting and calling a raise spewing chips?

[ QUOTE ]
However, since you haven't run into any real resistance yet, I don't see why you should stop betting.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not a good reason to bet. We should only be betting if (1) we know how to react to a raise; and (2) we expect worse hands to call. If we don't think a worse hand will call, there is no reason to risk a raise by betting. In this particular instance, based on the read of UTG, I think it's reasonably likely that he'd call, and that when he does we're ahead more than 55% of the time. MP2 is the wildcard.

[scotty34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Fold to any river raise. What would they raise with that you are beating. The only answer would be an outright bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am inclined to agree, but it's a tough fold against an unknown when we'd be getting 12.5 to 1 to call one back (and better if UTG calls the raise). If I saw a raise from MP2, the only real hands I could give any credence to are flushes and funky two pairs. Is MP2 willing to bluff ~8% of the time in this situation?

Is this a situation where you can only bet if you're willing to fold to a raise? If not, is betting and calling a raise spewing chips?

[ QUOTE ]
However, since you haven't run into any real resistance yet, I don't see why you should stop betting.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not a good reason to bet. We should only be betting if (1) we know how to react to a raise; and (2) we expect worse hands to call. If we don't think a worse hand will call, there is no reason to risk a raise by betting. In this particular instance, based on the read of UTG, I think it's reasonably likely that he'd call, and that when he does we're ahead more than 55% of the time. MP2 is the wildcard.

[/ QUOTE ]

In terms of the likelihood of MP2 bluffing, that is really going to depend on your reads of him. In this scenario I bet, and yes I do intend to fold to a raise.

I am fairly confident we are ahead in this hand enough to make a bet worthwhile. I don't put either UTG or MP2 on a King. My reasoning for this is that UTG would have opened the flop in all likelihood, especially with 2 flush cards. MP2 would have raised a K on the flop, again with the reasoning of their being 2 flush cards. I don't think MP2 would be kicker scared, as hero showed no aggression PF. MP2 would raise this flop both for information, and to try and to get value from the draws that decide to tag along. Also, it would eliminate the lower pairs that might stick around and hit 2-pair or trips.

The only real hand I am worried about is UTG making his flush on the river, and attempting a C/R. This is why I am willing to fold to a raise on the river.

Without any reads provided, the hands I put the others on are: MP2 has a J with a weaker kicker. He was calling down in hopes that Hero was bluffing, or hitting 2-pair (low limit players love to do this). UTG is a bit more difficult, perhaps a lower PP that he couldn't get rid of, possibly also a J, or maybe even something like A7. If UTG C/R the river, then I would say almost certainly a flush.

This could be totally off, as it was done without any reads, but this is what I can gather from the given information.


Edit: My bad, I totally overlooked the reads section at the top of the OP. I stand by my statements though even with this new info about UTG. Unless he is so passive that he will not bet top pair.

[Catt]

[ QUOTE ]
In terms of the likelihood of MP2 bluffing, that is really going to depend on your reads of him. In this scenario I bet, and yes I do intend to fold to a raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I rely pretty heavily on reads, more so than most, I think (I watch post-flop play pretty closely, especially when new to a table and I take notes on post-flop play). This river decision is somewhat more interesting because we truly do have an unknown -- he just posted this orbit.

[ QUOTE ]
The only real hand I am worried about is UTG making his flush on the river, and attempting a C/R. This is why I am willing to fold to a raise on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am way more concerned about the unknown in MP2. UTG is a total donkey according to the read. I'd expect to see a garbage hand more than a flush here. No reads on post-flop aggression or on post-flop play on him but I am assuming very passive post-flop too -- if I got C/R'd by UTG I'd have an easier time folding. But MP2 might be a sharper tack.

[ QUOTE ]
Without any reads provided, the hands I put the others on are: MP2 has a J with a weaker kicker. He was calling down in hopes that Hero was bluffing, or hitting 2-pair (low limit players love to do this). UTG is a bit more difficult, perhaps a lower PP that he couldn't get rid of, possibly also a J, or maybe even something like A7. If UTG C/R the river, then I would say almost certainly a flush.

This could be totally off, as it was done without any reads, but this is what I can gather from the given information.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like your efforts, but these players are very difficult to read with that degree of accuracy. UTG could have A-high; he could have a K; he could have a J; he could have a 7; he could have something like Q9 -- he could have almost anything because, in the words of the read, he is passive and stupid (and a 60/0 statistical read).

We don't know whether MP2 is passive and stupid or sharp.

I may be a bit biased in this analysis by my own recent play experiences -- I have been experimenting with river bluff-raises (or quasi-bluff raises where I might have the best or second best hand) against TAGs or others capable of making tough folds when the right river card falls, and though my sample size is small, I am not yet disappointed in the results. This would be an interesting hand for such a quasi-bluff raise, if for instance, I had a J and a good read on Hero.

[scotty34]

[ QUOTE ]
I like your efforts, but these players are very difficult to read with that degree of accuracy. UTG could have A-high; he could have a K; he could have a J; he could have a 7; he could have something like Q9 -- he could have almost anything because, in the words of the read, he is passive and stupid (and a 60/0 statistical read).

[/ QUOTE ]

Very true, but given this range of hands, its still a value bet.

Yes, without any reads whatsoever, the MP2 is much more of a wildcard. I would consider this a 'different breed' of a value bet. Given that your typical party micro player is not that sharp, usually loose and passive, and often calls down with quite marginal holdings, I say we are ahead of most of their hands. Sure, this player could be a shark, but there is no reason to suspect so, you can just assume average. If you bet this river versus any random party micro player, I think you are getting value from it.

If he calls and shows a K, then you can start making your reads on him from there.

[Catt]

I agree with your analysis.

The two questions I find interesting are:

1. Can we bet this river without the ability to fold to a raise from MP2?

2. If the answer is "no," does that dictate that we must check the river?

FWIW, I think the answers are NO and YES

EDIT: And I think we should bet the river. I just can't say that I fold to a raise 100% of the time. My river play leaves a lot to be desired.

[scotty34]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with your analysis.

The two questions I find interesting are:

1. Can we bet this river without the ability to fold to a raise from MP2?

2. If the answer is "no," does that dictate that we must check the river?

FWIW, I think the answers are NO and YES

EDIT: And I think we should bet the river. I just can't say that I fold to a raise 100% of the time. My river play leaves a lot to be desired.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, well my question is this: What possible range of hands is an unknown player (also keeping in mind you are unknown to him) going to raise this river with?

[Catt]

We may not be unknown to him. He may have a statistical read on us through datamining or otherwise - but that is a bit beside the point.

I'd say he'd raise: (1) a hand that beats us; or (2) a bluff (including a quasi-bluff where he has a possible second best hand like a xJ). I wouldn't rule out a Kx hand held by a FPS-sufferer (thinking he was going for overcalls the whole way).

[scotty34]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say he'd raise: (1) a hand that beats us; or (2) a bluff (including a quasi-bluff where he has a possible second best hand like a xJ). I wouldn't rule out a Kx hand held by a FPS-sufferer (thinking he was going for overcalls the whole way).

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Obviously a good reason to fold

2) I rarely, if ever have seen a player call down aggression to the river with mid-pair, and all of a sudden decide to try and bluff against 2 opponents, hoping they both fold. I rule out that he has xJ because of this. If he was suffering from FPS and held Kx, and comes alive on the river, then we are beat.

I think the only hand that raises in this scenario beats us, and therefore we can bet and safely fold to a raise. At least this will be the case more than the 90% of the time that we need to make calling here profitable, IMO.

[Catt]

So, to make the bet/fold line correct, we need to be sure that (1) if called by both, we are good more than 34% of the time and if called by one we are good more than 50% of the time; and (2) unknown Villain will not bluff or quasi-bluff more than ~8% of the time. Correct?