I only fold because of the river card... - Page 2

csuf_gambler · #11 09-15-2005, 03:36 AM

how so

Bodhi · #12 09-15-2005, 03:38 AM

Because the villain could be 3-betting K[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]Kx, if you want one reason.

thesharpie · #13 09-15-2005, 03:39 AM

There's no value in it, we open ourselves up to folding the best hand, we open ourselves up to being raised on the turn.

#14 09-15-2005, 03:56 AM

I dont get your line. I would probably fold this on the flop without a spade, but since you do choose to call down, you must be hoping for villain to have something like 99,TT QQ or KK. (24 combinations, against the 20 ways he can have AA, AK, AQ, and JJ, where you have 0 or 3 outs to improve).

Following your line, if you want to pay 2,5 BB to see if he has a hand in the first range, why dont you pay the last 1BB to see if he has 99,TT or QQ? (18 combinations)

Maybe my logic is flawed here, but I think that if you choose to call down, you cant fold to this non-spade river.

thesharpie · #15 09-15-2005, 03:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I dont get your line. I would probably fold this on the flop without a spade, but since you do choose to call down, you must be hoping for villain to have something like 99,TT QQ or KK. (24 combinations, against the 20 ways he can have AA, AK, AQ, and JJ, where you have 0 or 3 outs to improve).

Following your line, if you want to pay 2,5 BB to see if he has a hand in the first range, why dont you pay the last 1BB to see if he has 99,TT or QQ? (18 combinations)

Maybe my logic is flawed here, but I think that if you choose to call down, you cant fold to this non-spade river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because of those 18 combinations, he's usually betting them never.

Bodhi · #16 09-15-2005, 04:06 AM

The idea is that a thinking player isn't going to bet QQ, TT or 99 when the K falls on the river. If we suppose the river were a blank, the villain would probably bet KK or QQ, and I would call with the winning hand. Once he bets the river, his hand can be deduced to either a pair of aces like AK or AQs, KK or JJ.

Bodhi · #17 09-15-2005, 04:11 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Because of those 18 combinations, he's usually betting them never.

[/ QUOTE ]

If only I could express myself so concisely. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

#18 09-15-2005, 05:06 AM

I may be wrong, but I would still call here. If he is betting a hand without an Ace, which we must hope he is since we call flop and turn, can we be so sure that he is not continuing this on the river that we fold for the last bet?

Sometimes people get carried away with betting a smaller PP than TP when called down. It may not happen often enough to merit a call on the river, but I wouldn't be certain enough to let this pot go for the last bet.

Maybe I have a leak here, comments are welcome!

Bodhi · #19 09-15-2005, 02:45 PM

[ QUOTE ]
If he is betting a hand without an Ace, which we must hope he is since we call flop and turn, can we be so sure that he is not continuing this on the river that we fold for the last bet?

[/ QUOTE ]
We can't be sure that he's not betting a hand without an Ace on the river, but we can be sure that he's betting a hand that beats us: A big Ace, JJ or KK.

[ QUOTE ]
The idea is that a thinking player isn't going to bet QQ, TT or 99 when the K falls on the river. [It makes no sense to value bet QQ when there's two overcards on the board]. If we suppose the river were a blank, the villain would probably bet KK or QQ, and I would call with the winning hand. Once he bets the river, his hand can be deduced to either a pair of aces like AK or AQs, KK or JJ.

[/ QUOTE ]