Simultaneously a bluff and a value-bet

[M.B.E.]

I found Grant Strauss's latest column intriguing:

Grant Strauss's column in Card Player

He argues that a bet on the river can be simultaneously a bluff and a value-bet. I'm not sure whether he's correct. Basically the example he gives is this. In seven-card stud on the river he has a pair of 5s. He figures his opponent has either a pair of 4s or a pair of 6s, with 4s being a little more likely. He's not afraid of his opponent raising if he bets. He thinks that if he bets his opponent will fold 6s with 50% probability, but call with 4s with 20-25% probability. So if he bets, is it a value-bet, a bluff, or both?

[rigoletto]

Is it important what you call it? It seems like a pretty standard play to me; betting the river increases his chances of winning given his reads. I would say it's just another one of those; 'look how smart I am columns'!

[Clarkmeister]

When the pot is large I think this situation comes up frequently.

I can recall lots of times when I bet on the river thinking that I could both get called by worse hands as well as get better hands to fold. I don't think its an uncommon occurance at all, though Grant's column was the first time I'd seen anyone write about the idea.

[Robk]

The concept behind the article is similar to the one in Bluffing and Betting for Value in the TOP, although the situations are different because Grant is simultaneously betting for value and bluffing, but in the TOP you are either going to bet or value bluff, and it's correct to do both (but once you see your river you know what you are doing). Ditto for a Poker Essays Quiz by Mason.

[M.B.E.]

Skp recently posted a hand against Nolan Dalla, where Nolan bet pocket aces on the river when the final board was Qs-Js-Ts-9d-3d. Skp had two pair (QT) and folded. Afterward, skp wasn't sure whether Nolan's river bet had been a value-bet or a bluff.

In my own experience, lots of times I've bet the river as a bluff with a small pair, say, and been called by ace-high. But until now, I've always felt a bit foolish when that happened -- my read was wrong, so my river bet must have been a terrible play (and I just got lucky to benefit from it).

But now, thanks to Grant Strauss, I'll be able to take the money and be confident I made a good play. Score one for my ego!

[758219]

Many bad players make that bet, e.g. KT2XX and they multiway weakness-bet like T8 or 88 at the river (or turn); I have lost enough money in those situations, so that I am sure that in that type of games I will call with at least QT in that situation, and try to call with any pair of tens and also less if the position is better. Those bets succeed only vs. weak-tight players, and should not be made in loose games, as only the calling stations will benefit.

[758219]

Against all type of players on every street the correct strategy is to bet the hands that are both a possibly best hand and a bluff, the most usual hands for such being ace-high hands and pocket pairs, that additionally can't most often call. The only hands worth calling are raising hands or calls where the other is either weaker or stronger (overcard or a pocket pair) and continues to bet and might play back with just overcards if you raise or check-raise them.