River

[kgrad5]

This is not a clear cut checkraise or value bet, they are both correct in different situations.
you need to ask yourself a few questions
1) how likely is it that she will bet if i check?
2) how likely is it that she will fold if i bet?

is she the type of player who will slow down with a flush if the board pairs?
she did raise when the flush card came but ive seen weak players do that with just an A trying to push you off your hand or see if you were on the flush draw.
the last thing i want to do is have the river checked through. I always see people make their hands on the river and check hopeing for a raise and have it checked through.
from your description of the player she is most likely calling your bet if you do if not raising.
I would value bet this river and hope for a raise.

[DeathDonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
the last thing i want to do is have the river checked through. I always see people make their hands on the river and check hopeing for a raise and have it checked through.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand this sucks, it happens to me a lot of times. But its not as bad as you say, if you get one bet from leading and 2 bets (they almost always call the checkraise) then it only needs to work 1/3 of the time.

-DeathDonkey

[tor]

*posting blind*

Check raise. It'll probably induce a bluff if he's bluffing, and he'll bet for sure with the flush. There's some risk he'll check through instead of bluffing, but if he was willing to raise that turn, I think you're safe.

[Sir Bruce]

I think you need to lead out and bet. A check-raise is possible, but I think you'll be missing out on at least one bet that way, if not two, and having this checked through would be a disaster. It is very likely that the villain will raise your bet, given the action so far and her range of hands. This will allow a 3-bet and it may even get capped. A check-raise, on the other hand, has a large possibility of ending the action with the raise. People often correctly read them as strength, and will just call you down.

[DeathDonkey]

Before anyone corrects me I'll save face by correcting myself. What I wrote is wrong.

-DeathDonkey

[DMBFan23]

I'm assuming

1) she always pays off a checkraise
2) she always pays off a river three bet, and never folds the river
3) your hand is good 100% of the time (meaning she'd raise AA preflop and her most likely hand is a flush)

not unreasonable IMO.

so, you bet and she raises some fraction of the time (n) and calls 1-n of the time. your EV there is is 3(n) + 1(1 - n) = 2n + 1.

if you check, she bets some fraction (m) of the time and checks 1-m of the time. your EV there is 2(m) + 0(1-m) = 2m


so your EV is equal when 2n + 1 = 2m - for example, when n = 1/4 and m = 3/4, you make the same by betting or checkraising.

the more she bets after you check (bigger m) and the less she raises your bet (smaller n) the less you make by bet-3betting. plugging in different numbers for how often she might bet (and correspondingly how often she'd have to raise if I bet - remember, the less likely she is to bet, the less likely she is to raise my bet as well) I like a c/r here.

EDIT: this also assumes she never folds to our river bet, but seriously who would ever do that [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

it also assumes she won't cap or three bet

[cmwck]

If you plug in .5 for m (chance she bets if you check), you get a value of 0 for n (chance she raises if you bet). Since we assume she will raise you a non-zero percentage of the time, this means she has to bet when you check > 50% of the time. Otherwise, betting out becomes automatically more profitable.