|
|
#11
10-26-2005, 03:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: WWSD? (What Would Slansky Do)
Very few hands worse than yours will raise this river, thus allowing you a pretty safe fold if raised. However, many worse hands may well call a bet and a few hands that are better than yours will fold (very weak flushes, for example). Additionally, lots of those same hands will also check behind if you check. The idea is that a bet/fold line wins the same or more when you're ahead and loses the same or less when you're behind when compared to a check/call line.
If I were villain in this hand, I'd be betting this river against you with any two cards. 
|
|
#12
10-26-2005, 03:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WWSD? (What Would Slansky Do)
[ QUOTE ]
The purpose of betting on the river is to get called (or even raised) by a second-best hand, or to get a better hand to fold. This isn't happening here, as he's not calling (or raising) without a flush, and he's unlikely to fold on the river here if he has the flush. [/ QUOTE ] You really think he folds everything that's not a flush here? You need a read to know that. I can think of many hands you beat that random players call with. Pocket pairs and anything containing a K, the case 6 or even A high. You will get called with all the low flush cards which costs the same as a check call. All those hands he's now checking behind with. By checking you allow him to showdown his weak hands he might not have been able to let go for free. I'm not saying checking is terrible but I need a read that the guy will bluff a huge % of the time we check to be check calling here. There are metagaming aspect to checking this river too. By checking you tell him you have no diamond and he will usually bet his diamond almost everytime which costs you the same as betting does. By betting you keep him guessing and will get to 3-bet on occasion when he raises and you have the nuts. If the guy is very aggressive and will bet with more hands he will call with I like the check call line a lot but right now we just don't know that.
|
|
#13
10-26-2005, 03:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WWSD? (What Would Slansky Do)
Possibly at 0.5/1 you're getting called by hands like 5 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] and 4 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 3 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] more often than I think, but it seems to me that what'll usually happen on the river, if you bet, is that Villain will call or raise with hands that beat us and fold the hands we have beat.
I doubt Villain will fold any flush, so a key question is whether he'll call with worse hands more often than he'll check behind with a better hand (such as a weak flush with 5 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 5 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] or 4 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 3 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]). We also need to take into account the times Villain will fold a hand he would have bluffed if checked to and the times he'll bluff-raise a worse hand. (The bluff-raises in particular may be rare, but they will be costly to our bet-fold line when they happen.) I'd actually imagine that you're getting called by worse hands at 0.5/1 often enough to make betting the way to go, despite the potential drawbacks. But I don't think the decision is easy, especially against an unknown.
|
|
#14
10-26-2005, 03:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WWSD? (What Would Slansky Do)
[ QUOTE ]
When you say "bet fold" or "bet call," do you mean bet and then either fold to or call if he raises? This seems retarded to me. The purpose of betting on the river is to get called (or even raised) by a second-best hand, or to get a better hand to fold. This isn't happening here, as he's not calling (or raising) without a flush, and he's unlikely to fold on the river here if he has the flush. If he has the flush, then by check-calling we are only one paying one bet to see the showdown, whereas we are forcing ourselves to pay two if we bet and get raised. If he's betting a hand that you beat on the river (for instance, if your check induces a bluff), then a check-call will result in taking down the pot. I don't see any rationale for betting this river. This is an easy check-call IMO. [/ QUOTE ] Hi Salva if you were the villian in this hand how often would you bet here with top pair no heart after it was checked to you? How often would you call a bet if you had that same top pair no heart if bet into on the river when the fourth heart hit? Basically almost 100% of the time you check/call this river you lose one bet where the times you bet/fold this river you win one bet when ahead and lose the same one bet when behind. Bet/fold isn't always correct here if the villian was tricky and loved to bluff scare cards i would probably check/call if i was up against a super rock type who wouldn't likely pay my river bet off i might check/fold. Basically bet/fold is more profitable than check/call against your standard abc player.
|
|
#15
10-26-2005, 03:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WWSD? (What Would Slansky Do)
Grunch.
I check call the river. Clark's line says vilian should be betting here w/o a heart. The pot is small but I still think it's worth the 1 BB to make the call.
|
|
#16
10-26-2005, 04:03 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WWSD? (What Would Slansky Do)
[ QUOTE ]
Grunch. I check call the river. Clark's line says vilian should be betting here w/o a heart. The pot is small but I still think it's worth the 1 BB to make the call. [/ QUOTE ] Incorrect. Clark's line says HERO should bet here w/o a heart.
|
|
#17
10-26-2005, 04:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WWSD? (What Would Slansky Do)
[ QUOTE ]
Incorrect. Clark's line says HERO should bet here w/o a heart. [/ QUOTE ] And to fold to a raise. Thus, it's a bet/fold river line.
|
|
#18
10-26-2005, 04:08 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WWSD? (What Would Slansky Do)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Grunch. I check call the river. Clark's line says vilian should be betting here w/o a heart. The pot is small but I still think it's worth the 1 BB to make the call. [/ QUOTE ] Incorrect. Clark's line says HERO should bet here w/o a heart. [/ QUOTE ] Ahhhh. Thanks Wookie. Yeah, that kinda changes things, doesn't it?
|
|
#19
10-26-2005, 04:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WWSD? (What Would Slansky Do)
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Incorrect. Clark's line says HERO should bet here w/o a heart. [/ QUOTE ] And to fold to a raise. Thus, it's a bet/fold river line. [/ QUOTE ] No. There's nothing about folding to a raise. That's read dependent. There are exceptions to Clarkmeister! Blindly betting the river OOP on a four flush irregardless of prir action and opponents is moranic. There is certainly merit to checking this river if our hand is this strong and villian will bluff bet but not raise many more hands than he will simply call with.
|
|
#20
10-26-2005, 09:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: WWSD? (What Would Slansky Do)
[ QUOTE ]
P.S. I went to the Bible store and couldn't find the WWSD ankle bracklets. I was so bummed out. I would look so rad with one. Sexy even. [/ QUOTE ] I got mine behind the counter at Hooters! I have also seen them at Stucky's.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
