Hand To Talk About

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Clark:

If that's the case, then you should certainly fold. But you're assuming that I would absolutely never bet the river without a very good hand.

If you assume this and you're wrong, it could be expensive. Also, if you assume this, and I think you will assume this, and so would only make this bet against you but not anyone else, you're in very big trouble. That's because your observations when I play against others will confirm that your fold was absolutely correct.

Best wishes,
Mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, first you wouldn't necessarily know that I am making that assumption. Besides, this isn't about adjustments you'd make based on subsequent hands, this is a specific hand in isolation where it is damn near impossible to put you on anything other than the nuts on the river. I still think you aren't giving your opponent enough credit for making a pretty simple read.

Second, please let me know what other hands you would play exactly this way that don't beat one pair of aces. Because I think the universe of hands that not only you, but almost everyone on this board (myself included)could have that doesn't beat a pair of aces when you bet the river is comprised of zero hands. I mean, I'm just not buying that you are ever playing KK this way, at least against an opponent without known exploitable tendancies.

[Gramps]

I'm in agreement with those that like a check-raise attempt on the River for this hand.

I'm having trouble seeing what Ace-containing hands this player would play in this fashion that haven't made two pair by the Turn. When he calls the flop bet, then calls two more cold back to him when the solid BB PFR 3-bets, that seems to eliminate any hands containing an Ace that doesn't have a piece of that flop (since we know he doesn't have the Ace-high flush draw). If this player would raise the first flop bet with ATs, or wouldn't limp A7s or A2s in EP, then an Ace-containing hand seems unlikely. If he would limp with Ac2c/Ac7c (or call two cold back to him with any A7s/A2s he limped with), or would just call with ATs, then the Turn raise could very well be Aces over.

So when he raises the Turn, it would seem to be a set (77 maybe waiting til Turn to pop), Aces over, a semi-bluff with a lower heart draw (e.g. QhJh) or 98.

Assuming no bluff raises on the River, a River bet will make 98 fold. Two pair or a set will probably just call, and a lower flush...you may get 1 BB, you may get 3 BB - but a River lead given the prior action is strongly suggestive of AhKh, meaning only getting 1 BB by leading into a smaller flush seems likely (maybe not, guess it depends on how your opponent plays).

If you check, there's a chance 98 will fire again, two pair or a set will fire and may call the check-raise, and a lower flush will bet and likely call the raise.

I like checking the River on all of the above possible holdings of your opponent...in thought out hindsight, of course (with assumptions and all) [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Is part of the reason for the River lead the "metagame" value - even if you might lose a bet on this hand, you discourage trickier players from taking a semi-bluff shot at you on the Turn/raising a hand on the Turn with the intention of checking behind on the River? Not that you want to leave bets on the table, but there seems to be definite value in discouraging that behavior from your opponents (when it's close between betting and going for the check-raise).

[mike l.]

the problem here is mason is only willing to talk about this hand in theoretical broad terms. he's correct in what he says about this fold by his opponent being exploitable. THEORETICALLY.

but the fact is his opponent made a great laydown based on the same sort of logic process you have went through, the truth is mason isnt betting 88 or KK or something here EVER.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
the problem here is mason is only willing to talk about this hand in theoretical broad terms. he's correct in what he says about this fold by his opponent being exploitable. THEORETICALLY.

but the fact is his opponent made a great laydown based on the same sort of logic process you have went through, the truth is mason isnt betting 88 or KK or something here EVER.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. My point is that while he makes theoretically correct counterpoints, he is also at the same time changing the rules of the game. We are talking about this one hand in isolation. And in this hand, IMO checkraising the river is clearly correct for reasons we've gone over already in this thread, chief of which being that Mason's bet on the river looks like the nuts to anyone with a remote clue. And since he does, in fact, have the nuts, that makes betting bad when he can still try and sell his hand as one pissed-off pair of kings by checking.

[cero_z]

Hi Clarkmeister,
[ QUOTE ]
Mason needs to check the river, especially with hearts coming, because that is a perfect card for his opponent to bluff again at on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. And it appears that his opponent was on a stone-cold bluff, though obviously Mason didn't read it that way at the time. What I'm wondering, though, is whether his opponent will try to bluff on the river if he gets 3-bet on the turn (this was mike l.'s recommended line). So I'm assuming you mean after the actual action that took place, he should go for the c/r. Let me know if this ain't the case.

[Duke]

Good point.

I'm not used to players who will raise the turn for a free showdown, and then find the fold for one bet on the river with any semblance of a hand. That's why I assumed he was on a pure move.

~D

[flopdanutz]

if the river is:
a heart that pairs the board?
a non heart that pairs the board?
a king?
another ace?
a card that makes the straight?
a total blank?

[mikelow]

Other than a possible turn three-bet, there isn´t much to talk about.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
Have you been reading RGP?

The higher limit hold 'em games at The Bellagio have a much smaller pool of players than games at $30-$60 and under. I've done most of my play this year at $60-$120 and higher and thus have played against many of the regulars a bunch of times in these games. Their of opinion of my play won't be as simple as "He's a rock."

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought you might not appreciate that characterization. Sorry.

I never pigeonhole anyone into a one-word profile. I was attempting to save bandwidth.

I meant to say "Fairly tight, yet sophisticatedly sporadic tricky and aggressive player who has recently doubled the stakes of his regular game."

Isn't that how they categorize you at RGP?? [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[theBruiser500]

I don't understand limit, why not three bet the turn?