Hands that make you feel smart afterwards...

[blackize]

Krishan makes a good point. Very few players will lay anything down for 1 bet on the river at least not in a pot this size.

[SparkyDog]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to make a play, make it on the flop/turn.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

This won't work because single high spades will call looking for the flush. And may decide to call the river too, because they've been calling the whole hand. So if I make a play, make it on the river where he's got me or he doesn't.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you want to make a play, make it on the flop/turn.

Krishan

[/ QUOTE ]

This won't work because single high spades will call looking for the flush. And may decide to call the river too, because they've been calling the whole hand. So if I make a play, make it on the river where he's got me or he doesn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

you trying to tailor a bluff line to fit the hand, which makes the bluff very transparent.

Is there any hand that you would ordinarily play exactly like this, that beats AK on the river?

if I have AK with one spade I might take villains exact line and your c/r looks so incredibly fishy I might look you up.

this needs to work 1/3.5 or whatever, and he's really only going to fold A high here which may not make up 1/3.5 of his range, and even if it does it might not work.

[GetThere1Time]

[ QUOTE ]
this needs to work 1/3.5 or whatever, and he's really only going to fold A high here which may not make up 1/3.5 of his range, and even if it does it might not work.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're giving the Villian too much credit if you think he's going to fold A-high a majority of the time.

[GetThere1Time]

I guess I'm a nit then.

[ QUOTE ]
Villian is too loose, and is usually aggressive in the right spots on paper, but gets into too many spots due to his looseness. Tries to read hands, and probably thinks pretty straightforwardly and logically. I'm pretty sure he only operates on the first level though.


[/ QUOTE ]

The first part of this statement is viable, but I think whether he "tries to read hands and thinks straightforward and logically", or whether he "plays on the first level" or not are things you really can't determine by playing one session of internet poker with someone. If you've played tons with the villian or know the villian in real life maybe I could by it but it sounds to me like you're just justifying your river play ahead of time.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm bumping this. I think this hand's interesting enough at least have a nit say it won't work 1/3.5 times.

So I think the flop call is easy and turn call is closer, but with 6 pure outs and 8 likely ones, it's close enough to not really matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can maybe dig the flop call and the turn call since this guy is pretty loose who knows he might have. 6-8ish outs after the discount seems reasonable.

[ QUOTE ]
I decided to check-raise the river after he bet it, simply because it doesn't really jive with the rest of the action. What's worth betting on this river for the Villian? Seems like his bet here represents either a hand looking for a fold (but not necessarily worse than mine) or an overpair that's not cutting loose, and there's not nearly as many of those.[/

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand how you don't think it "jives" with the rest of the action. The villian has a hand he likes. He's a LAG. Rawrawrawrawrbettttt!. Here's why this is bad:

You said yourself the villian is loose so he's going to be paying off with a large range of hands here. This is even more reinforced by him betting the river. He's going to showdown. If a LAG is betting the river, whether it be with ace-high or whatever, and he gets check-raised you're probably getting looked up because the board's paired and the action's goofy. Speaking of the action, what hand are you trying to represent? A slowplayed flush/set? The 3 peels off. It doesn't take a whole lot of insight to figure out that you probably don't have one.

In short, save this kind of stuff for tighter players at higher limits on scarier rivers. Rivers that apply in a I think he thinks I have x based on the way the hand progressed situation.

[SparkyDog]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I'm a nit then.

[ QUOTE ]
Villian is too loose, and is usually aggressive in the right spots on paper, but gets into too many spots due to his looseness. Tries to read hands, and probably thinks pretty straightforwardly and logically. I'm pretty sure he only operates on the first level though.


[/ QUOTE ]

The first part of this statement is viable, but I think whether he "tries to read hands and thinks straightforward and logically", or whether he "plays on the first level" or not are things you really can't determine by playing one session of internet poker with someone. If you've played tons with the villian or know the villian in real life maybe I could by it but it sounds to me like you're just justifying your river play ahead of time.

[ QUOTE ]

I'm bumping this. I think this hand's interesting enough at least have a nit say it won't work 1/3.5 times.

So I think the flop call is easy and turn call is closer, but with 6 pure outs and 8 likely ones, it's close enough to not really matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can maybe dig the flop call and the turn call since this guy is pretty loose who knows he might have. 6-8ish outs after the discount seems reasonable.

[ QUOTE ]
I decided to check-raise the river after he bet it, simply because it doesn't really jive with the rest of the action. What's worth betting on this river for the Villian? Seems like his bet here represents either a hand looking for a fold (but not necessarily worse than mine) or an overpair that's not cutting loose, and there's not nearly as many of those.[/

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand how you don't think it "jives" with the rest of the action. The villian has a hand he likes. He's a LAG. Rawrawrawrawrbettttt!. Here's why this is bad:

You said yourself the villian is loose so he's going to be paying off with a large range of hands here. This is even more reinforced by him betting the river. He's going to showdown. If a LAG is betting the river, whether it be with ace-high or whatever, and he gets check-raised you're probably getting looked up because the board's paired and the action's goofy. Speaking of the action, what hand are you trying to represent? A slowplayed flush/set? The 3 peels off. It doesn't take a whole lot of insight to figure out that you probably don't have one.

In short, save this kind of stuff for tighter players at higher limits on scarier rivers. Rivers that apply in a I think he thinks I have x based on the way the hand progressed situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure you can make player reads like that. But there's no percentages, so most here don't use them. But I can tell when someone is thinking about others' hands, although poorly. You should be able to too. Besides, this is the player type I'm providing for the discussion. This hand may have never happened.

A lot of you are taking my intital statement of "slightly too loose, and aggressive" too far. The guy isn't calling this river checkraise without at least a pair. He's not a 50/30/2.5, if that clarifies the issue.

The last thing goes back to the read. If the Villian sucks at reading hands, but trusts his reads anyways, then does it really matter that I wouldn't play a hand this way? You're right that it doesn't take much insight to realize I don't have a 3, but this guy doesn't have a whole lot of insight.

Last point: WTF is this guy betting the river with except [censored] and overpairs+? I couldn't figure out what the hell he would want to put an additional bet and get called on this river when this hand happened, so I figured I could push him off something. I also think that a C/R will fold hands that a river donk bet won't, but I'm having trouble explaining exactly why.

I'm on the fence about my play. I think you guys might be right about the play being bad, but I don't think the right reasons have been discussed.

[GetThere1Time]

There's tons of contradictions I don't understand. First you say he's too loose and too aggressive. Now you're telling me he's not that loose and not that aggressive. Then you tell me you're pushing him off crap on the river, but if he's not that loose and aggressive wouldn't he have a hand that beats you most of the time when he 3-bets pf and bets the river?

Next you tell me he reads hands and trusts his reads, although poorly, but he doesnt have a whole lot of insight. He must have some insight, albeit incorrect insight.

Last point: When you're bluffing you're representing a strong hand, one stronger than your opponent's. It's not enough to guess he has crap and raise and see if he folds. You're not representing any kind of a hand here. If he reads hands a little bit he's going to be confused by the action and call. If he's a total donk he's going to be confused by the action and call. If he has the instruction card and the cut card he's going to be confused by the action and call.

[kidcolin]

[ QUOTE ]
Last point: WTF is this guy betting the river with except [censored] and overpairs+? I couldn't figure out what the hell he would want to put an additional bet and get called on this river when this hand happened, so I figured I could push him off something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sets, flushes (AK or KQ), AT possibly. Do you really think you're pushing him off any overpair? It really just looks like he's valuebetting his hand here.

Exactly what hand are you trying to represent here? I guess you won the hand, but you played it poorly. If you're trying to fold overcards then bet or checkraise the turn.

[Spartan1983]

I agree with the majority here. If your going to make a move, do it on the turn. Most people, if they like their hand are going to call the river raise. Most decent players have seen people bluff on river scare cards, (if indeed the 3 is a scare card).