8/16 Bellagio Monster Draw

[MitchL]

Really, It was the last pot you played before this hand. I cant believe it slipped my mind, we discussed the op hand so much you would've thought I remembered. Did you at least remember the kids comment?

P.S. I might have played loose and fast w/ the words "huge draw," I think you hit an openender or flush draw, not nearly as good a draw as the op hand.

[ QUOTE ]
My usual game is a bit higher and more aggro so sometimes I have trouble adjusting to typical players in these games. That said, I had no read on vilain in this hand except that he was young and had not played a hand in the orbit or so since I joined the game (I hadn't played one either).

EP limper, Villain raises in MP, SB folds and I call in BB with:
A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] J [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]
Flop is:
K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] T [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 4 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
I bet, EP folds, villain raises, I 3-bet, villain 4-bets, I call.
Turn is:
2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
I check, villain checks.
River is:
6 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
I bet....
What do you think villain's range is here and how is my play on all streets?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to get my head around this. My gut tells me to bet at the pot on the river. I feel I can't win with a check. If I check and am raised, I should probably fold.

The turn check by the villain is what gets me to bet. I think he was concerned we would check raise. His lack of betting means he is less concerned about giving a free card than being raised. He is not charging us for our draw and with the board not paired, that tells me his hand is not as strong as we were led to believe. With MitchL adding the info on the "raising your draw again?" I think it is conceivable that villain has QQ or JJ or maybe even 99. The pot is huge. I think I take a stab at it. The turn action is what makes me bet. A bet would reinforce his (possible) belief that I was going to checkraise the turn.

Now, If I checked the turn and got bet into, I would call the turn bet and probably check/fold (and puke) the rag river.

LLL

[W. Deranged]

Why would we bet this river? If villain has any kind of made hand, since the pot is decent, he's calling. If he folds, he almost certainly has a worse hand. Unless villain is really odd, he's not four-betting this flop, and then just deciding that the 2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] and 6 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] are too scary for him so he's giving up on the hand with anything. If he had a pair on the flop, he's calling. He almost certainly didn't have AQ on this flop either. If he does, whatever, it's too unlikely to worry about.

So betting is basically the equivalent of value-betting villain's marginal made hands for him and making it easy for him to fold his draws. In fact, even worse, betting lets a tricky villain raise you with a draw, and may force you to fold the best hand.

If you check, villain may likely take a wild shot at the pot with a worse missed draw, and you can call to induce a bluff. Very often, it'll just check behind and you'll take the pot down with A high.

Betting here is therefore quite bad in my opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
Why would we bet this river? If villain has any kind of made hand, since the pot is decent, he's calling. If he folds, he almost certainly has a worse hand. Unless villain is really odd, he's not four-betting this flop, and then just deciding that the 2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] and 6 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] are too scary for him so he's giving up on the hand with anything. If he had a pair on the flop, he's calling. He almost certainly didn't have AQ on this flop either. If he does, whatever, it's too unlikely to worry about.

So betting is basically the equivalent of value-betting villain's marginal made hands for him and making it easy for him to fold his draws. In fact, even worse, betting lets a tricky villain raise you with a draw, and may force you to fold the best hand.

If you check, villain may likely take a wild shot at the pot with a worse missed draw, and you can call to induce a bluff. Very often, it'll just check behind and you'll take the pot down with A high.
Betting here is therefore quite bad in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Deranged, so you would check/call? If so, what are you out that is different than Bet/fold. Both are 1 BB. This is based on the fact that I don't think this guy is bluff raising.

If you are villain with a worse hand, and it is checked to you. Do you bet after is checked and the draw is busted? What percentage of the time? I think this river is going to be bet by the villain a LARGE percentage of the time, IF it is checked to him.

So, the small (my estimate) number of times it is checked by us AND him (and saves a bet) needs to be weighed against the small (my estimate) number of times we bet and he has a hand better than ours that he would fold, and win us a pot.

If villain bet the turn and showed confidence in his hand. I check/fold the river. He didn't so I bet/fold the river.

[W. Deranged]

My point is that:

1. Villain is NEVER folding a better hand here.

2. Villain might well not bet a better hand.

3. Villain is almost NEVER calling with a worse hand.

4. Villain might bluff with a worse hand.

There is absolutely no reason to bet here. The "it's all 1 BB" idea doesn't apply because a lot of the time when we check villain will not bet (he didn't bet the turn, after all).

The decision is very clearly between check-call and check-fold. If villain has any ability to bluff here, since he's so likely on a busted draw, we need to call a single bet from him getting decent odds. If he's very straightforward, you can fold, but notice that his turn check is really very weird and so I'm tempted to call a lot of the time.

When villain checks the turn, to me it suggests that villain:

1. Either is a total puss and just capped the flop because he wants to put no big bets in on the later streets and basically wants to check it down.

2. Villain is on a draw.

In either case, checking the river is good. In the first case, we check and let him make a mistake by NOT betting. In the second case, we check and let him make a mistake by betting.

In other words, I think betting here basically let's villain play the river perfectly.

[ErrantNight]

villain may very well have checked the turn for fear of being c/r. however, that's typically the sign of somebody that wants to showdown for as little as possible, or is on a draw themselves. not the sign of somebody likely to fold to a blank river for one more. a river bet is very bad here. deranged has outlined this perfectly.

[lighterjobs]

[ QUOTE ]
So the 2h just made hero's hand? I doubt villain is scared w/44 after the turn puts down a complete blank

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that, he might have just thought twice about his hand on the turn. just my $.02.

[MitchL]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would we bet this river? If villain has any kind of made hand, since the pot is decent, he's calling. If he folds, he almost certainly has a worse hand. Unless villain is really odd, he's not four-betting this flop, and then just deciding that the 2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] and 6 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] are too scary for him so he's giving up on the hand with anything. If he had a pair on the flop, he's calling. He almost certainly didn't have AQ on this flop either. If he does, whatever, it's too unlikely to worry about.

So betting is basically the equivalent of value-betting villain's marginal made hands for him and making it easy for him to fold his draws. In fact, even worse, betting lets a tricky villain raise you with a draw, and may force you to fold the best hand.

If you check, villain may likely take a wild shot at the pot with a worse missed draw, and you can call to induce a bluff. Very often, it'll just check behind and you'll take the pot down with A high.

Betting here is therefore quite bad in my opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

The real question is what would villain stick 4 bets in on the flop and then suddenly check the turn with? QQ or JJ would be horrible. A king would be horrible, Aces would be horrible and a ten would just be spewing. We are of course assuming that he is reasonable, but he had done nothing out of the ordinary up to this point. I think the bet is good, because the only hand that I could foresee villain having was AQ. If he calls, so what? I think that the river going check check and villian taking the whole pot down w/ AQ would really suck. I think you at least have to fire at the river to take stab at it. Its unfortunate that that kid had to make that comment in the middle of the action, because I think it made villain intent on going to showdown.

[ QUOTE ]
villain may very well have checked the turn for fear of being c/r. however, that's typically the sign of somebody that wants to showdown for as little as possible, or is on a draw themselves. not the sign of somebody likely to fold to a blank river for one more. a river bet is very bad here. deranged has outlined this perfectly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Looks like I am outnumbered here and may be wrong.

My last salvo though.

I do believe we are beat here. I do believe I won't fold villain with the better hand here often. Is it possible that WHEN villain has a better hand, that we could fold him 10% of the time? (example AsQs, JT, QsJs, JJ, QQ, 99)

I admit, We are beat here the majority of the time. I just think we might be good better than 1 time outta 10.

For those that feel it is ABSOLUTELY wrong to bet. Is there a pot size big enough to swing your decision to bet?.

LLL

[ErrantNight]

I don't think you should confuse times where it's preferable to bet/fold instead of check/calling. Frequently you are correct. However, given the available information here, check/calling and check/folding are infinitely preferable, in this particular hand.

I don't think you fold a better hand 10% of the time, here, no. Villain doesn't play the flop like this with the intention of folding to a single bet on the turn or river.