TPTK versus the four-flush river - AQo

[ QUOTE ]
In favor of betting:

-Most time he has a lone pair, he'll call you (imo)

- Every time (or nearly) he has any low spade, he'll call you.


Against betting:

- Every time (or nearly) he has any low spade, he'll call you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

[Stack]

That was supposed to be a cut/paste, not a copy/paste. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

I'm surprised no one had anything to add to this hand. I find it interesting.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
I would love to hear you own reasoning on this, as everything becomes so clear after readying most of your analyses.

[/ QUOTE ]
Very flattering thank you, but if I knew the answer I wouldn't have posted the hand. However the discussion isn't making much progress so I'll say a few things.

1. I actually bet my hand.

2. It is a fact that good players have severely criticized me in the past for checking in similar-looking situations.

3. There are a ton of worse hands that will call. I don't believe the people who say one-pair hands routinely fold for one bet. This is one of the loose/bad fish. If they play as well as that I need a new game or maybe a new hobby.

4. I didn't get popped on the turn. That's a very good sign that he didn't already have me beat (two pair, set, suited spades). No guarentee of course.

5. Many players donk this river when they hit the flush. They have learned through experience that it's usually the only way to get paid.

6. This player seems to be an uber-trapper and that's very worrisome.

7. The board texture feels like I should have a spade most of the time. I wouldn't bet this turn with AK no spade. That's a good reason why he might not bet the river with a random spade.

[Nick C]

What I would probably do, most of the time, is check behind on the river, pessimistically figuring that Villain must've hung around on the turn because he had a spade in his hand.

But I'm looking at the hand now, trying to figure out which of his possible hands need to contain a spade (or two) for Villain to decide to chase (or trap) on the turn, and I'm not coming up with a whole lot. AJ? AT? KT? Well, that is 19 flush combos that beat you that maybe weren't folded on the turn precisely because of the spades on the board, but Villain's range is fairly wide here in general. Would Villain dump 2 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] on the turn but not 2 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]? Well, the queen on the turn could have hit you (as it did), and the third spade could give Villain an additional reason to fold, instead of calling on two consecutive big streets, if all he has is a pocket underpair and no spade.

JT is hand Villain will see the river with, with or without a flush draw, as is 65, and those hands now beat you.

I'm rambling, and I guess what I've ended up doing is trying to find reasons to check. I don't know if I came up with enough of them or not. But I do think Villain will fold a pair at least some of the time, I think he'll fold a flush pretty much never, and I have doubts about Villain dropping hands that beat you very often at all. Also, you aren't getting called by no-pair hands on this board, like you sometimes would on a more raggy, less scary board. So I'm thinking you need to be up against exactly one pair well over half the time to make betting the best play. I'm not sure how much over 50 percent you need, but you did mention that Villain likes to checkraise the river, which is another consideration.

Hmmm..a couple of things:

[ QUOTE ]
1. I actually bet my hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bet isn't so bad if you're willing to call a raise. I'm not too comfortable with reopening the betting to allow a bluff and giving up the pot in hand where I could've just checked and won. Not with this guy.


[ QUOTE ]
2. It is a fact that good players have severely criticized me in the past for checking in similar-looking situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really?? Do they fold to a raise? If they do, you can say their greed for 1BB may have just cost them 6BB.


[ QUOTE ]
3. There are a ton of worse hands that will call.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. He will call with some one pair hands if he feels like calling. I'm also worried that he will raise with some of those hands. (see above)


[ QUOTE ]
4. I didn't get popped on the turn. That's a very good sign that he didn't already have me beat (two pair, set, suited spades). No guarentee of course.
6. This player seems to be an uber-trapper and that's very worrisome.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a wash.


[ QUOTE ]
5. Many players donk this river when they hit the flush. They have learned through experience that it's usually the only way to get paid.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many players (especially types like this) will donk a mid-to-high flush out of fear. However, they will use a lowest flushes as a c/c bluff catcher and save the huge flushes for a c/r. I've seen it happen all too much where you value bet and the guy turns over the 2 or 3 of spades on a call.


[ QUOTE ]
7. The board texture feels like I should have a spade most of the time. I wouldn't bet this turn with AK no spade. That's a good reason why he might not bet the river with a random spade.

[/ QUOTE ]

See # 5.


Overall, I would check or bet/call although I don't think it matters much either way. There are 50% pair hands that he calls with and 50% two pair/flush hands that he calls with. This decision isn't going to make a big difference in your winrate IMO.

[Krytemaster]

Definitely check, he could have a low flush, str8 or two pair or slowplaying a high/nut flush as well. There are simply too many hands that beats you and too few I think he would call you with.

P.S. The soccer goal by Zlatan in MoDOH´s profile, so amazing... Maybe not the correct place to write about it though... D.S.

[NLSoldier]

I think everyone else=n00bs. I bet this about every time.

[colgin]

[ QUOTE ]
There are a ton of worse hands that will call.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that I don't think that a live one will call down with certain hands on a coordinated board like this that better players would have given up on as hopeless. I would not suggest that this bad player will not call with say a pair of red Two's so that if you knew he held such a hand you could bet against him for vlaue.

However, when you say that there are "a ton of worse hands" that will call I suggest that everyone look at this very coordinated board and perhaps count just how many such hands there actually are here. Even though villain's starting range is huge here, out of that range you need to exclude all hands with a [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] in it, pairs that would have flopped, turned or rivered a set, drawing hands that could have made two pair or a straight there. How many worse hands are left with which villain can call. Even assuming he will call with Ace high or another pair, will he also call with King high or Jack high that otherwise missed.

We should be able to count the number of worse hands that reasonably call here. As usual I am being a little lazy by not doing so myself. However, I did run a Poker Stove analysis (which I agree is not necessarily the best way of loooking at tgis). You told us villain saw the flop around 51% of the time. I gave villain what I thought we would agree is a pretty reasonable set of top 50% of hands, put that into PT along with the board cards and your hand and came out with a final equity for you here of 53%. Meaning if villain willy-nilly called down to the river with all of his hands (in fact, he might have folded on earlier streets with his worse misses) you are not good here as often as you might think. But when I eyeballed some of the worse abominations that villain couldn't possibly call a bet with I re-ran the numbers and got a final equity of around 51%. This is getting close to neutral in terms of EV (we are assuming, of course, now that villain calls with pretty much all his remaining hands). However, if you think you could get bluffed out of the pot by a river check-raise, or need to pay off a better hand when check-raised to avoid just that, then I think the prospect of value betting looks a little worse. Plus, based on the above PT calculations you really need villain to call with Ace-high hands that otherwise missed such as A2 or A3o (no spades) to hit that slightly marginally profitable value betting situation. Would this villain do that?

I would likely check here and don't think you lose a lot, if at all, by doing so.

[colgin]

Do these PT numbers help anyone else think about this problem one way or the other? Thoughts?

[me454555]

If he's pretty aggro on the river and will bluff often, theres no way you can fold to a c/r. Given that, combined w/the low probablity he will call w/a worse hand and overall scariness of the board I check behind.

If your opponent was the more straitfoward, less tricky type, this is an easy value bet and fold to a c/r