betting when "you'll only get called by a better hand"

[DOTTT]

Check the river.

[soah]

Against this player especially I think I'm giving up value by checking the river. It's very very likely that I have the best hand, and there are a number of worse hands he may call me with.

[sxz18]

[ QUOTE ]
On the river, when you are last to act, you can bet for two basic reasons.

[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] To get called by a worse hand. This is a value bet. It's best to do this with good hands.
[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] To make a better hand fold. This is a bluff. It's best to do this when your hand has no showdown value.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is the point of my post. I realize there are these two options on the river. In my particular hand, I believe I should've gone with option two. The question is when do you go with option one and when do you go with option two? I know it depends on the opponents you play, but I'm just saying I disagree when many people say you should check the river because you'll only get called by a better hand. The way the hand was played out, it's surely believable that I have a hand that beats 3 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] flush. This would be a perfect time to bluff off a better hand. You lose value when you fail to bet the river against weak hands that have you beat which will fold to a bet. Of course, this is for opponents who are donks and stay to the river with bottom pair.

[soah]

When you get to the river you don't know that he's holding the 3 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. And judging by the rest of his play in this hand, it looks like he may even call you on the river with it.

[creedofhubris]

Look man. This dude is a calling station. He is like the fish terminator: he catches a piece of the flop, and he WILL NOT FOLD UNTIL YOU ARE DEAD.

You cannot get him to fold bottom pair, what can possibly make you think he's going to fold a hand as good as a flush?

The only way to beat this particular kind of fish is not to bluff.

Against reasonable opponents, this is a good place to bet. Against fish boy, this is not a good place to bet.

[RandomUser]

[ QUOTE ]
Look man. This dude is a calling station. He is like the fish terminator: he catches a piece of the flop, and he WILL NOT FOLD UNTIL YOU ARE DEAD.

[/ QUOTE ]

Note to self, don't read posts while drinking coffee.

[DaveduFresne]

On this hand, I have to disagree with you, pretty much irregardless of the opponent. A third flush card hits on the turn. You bet and get called. What could the guy have here? Most reasonable opponents are going to smoothcall with either the made flush or possibly a pair and a flush draw, most likely with the Ace of the suit, or possibly the King.

This is assuming the guy is against a reasonable opponent. If hes not a reasonable opponent, then there's no reason to believe hes going to fold whatever hand he has, so the way I see it, unless you've got a semi tight opponent pegged for sure on a certain hand, its not a good spot to bluff, based on the action of the hand.

Its easy to look at the hand history and say "this is a good spot to bluff" (based on the two players hole cards) but you have to look back at the action, and to me it looks to be a terrible spot to bluff.

I read a response to my post where a guy was dismissing my discussion of outs as irrelevant. Its very relevant. If you're called on the river and your beat, thats it. If you're called on the flop even if you know you're beat, but you believe you have some folding equity plus the chance to make the best hand, then its a much better bluff.

Another problem with river bluffs, is, as I was saying in my previous post, they often don't make much sense.

I had a hand early this morning where I called a raise with 34 suited after a couple of limpers had come in. I happened to flop two pair, and I bet out into the raiser. The raiser called and the other two players dropped out. I'd be lying if I tried to tell you the exact turn and river card, but I do remember the board was one card from a straight (any five would make one). Now the raiser I had been playing with for a couple of hours, and he was reasonably tight preflop. He also had raised pretty infrequently, only seeing him showdown AK and a pair of Queens. So I just couldn't see his hand containing a five. I checked the river, and the guy went all in, overbetting the pot. I called immediately and he showed down AK.

I hope people dont take this as me bragging about what a great player I am, I think for any reasonable player, this should be an easy call to make. And that's my point. If you're paying attention to a player's tendencies and the action of a hand, it really doesn't matter how scary the board is, and how big a river bet may be. The bet needs to make sense in the context of the action of the hand. Like I said earlier, against a maniac (who doesn't bluff at every pot) there's a good shot I would fold in the situation I mentioned. He very well could have a five, and if he's a maniac, there's probably a better time that I can make a safer call against him.

Now getting back to the original question, yes there are times where a bet that could only be called by a hand that beats it could work out by getting a better hand to fold. My discussion of Brunson was how unwise it is to try to "swim against the current" and get opponents to lay down made hands to your inferior hand, particularly on the river, where you no longer have any draws out there to possibly improve your hand.

Another consideration that hasn't been raised is that in No limit there is a Limit poker consideration that you can't fold on the river frequently if the pots laying you better than 2-1 if you have a reasonable made hand. Of course there are reads and opponent considerations to take into account. But you don't want to be folding a lot of made hands when the pots laying you better than 2-1 on the river, just because a scare card comes. This is especially true if you have no reason to believe the scare card helped your opponent's hand based on the hand's action.

What I'm getting at with this point is that your river bet has to have some size to it to be sucessful against most opponents, and then you're risking quite a lot of chips on a stone cold bluff.

I think any principle in poker can be worked around if you have a stone cold read on an opponent. So in this case, if you know an opponent has Ace high, you can't beat it, but you know he's reasonable and won't call a decent sized bet with Ace high than you can go ahead and make a stone cold bluff. But most times your reads aren't that solid, so I think you can pick better ways of using your money in a poker game than a stone cold river bluff, when you know you can't beat your opponents hand in a showdown.

David

[sxz18]

Great response. One thing I don't agree with is what to do on the river. I know all about fishy river bluffs and I don't think this situation would be a fishy river bluff. Granted, Villian is an idiot, but I could easily have JA here with the A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] or JK with K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. It's not like I checked the turn behind Villian and then suddenly sprung to action on the river. I bet the hand like I had something strong with a redraw incase I needed it.

[DaveduFresne]

Glad you appreciated my lengthy response [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I wouldn't exactly have called a bet in your situation a "fishy river bluff". You did lead out at the turn, so its possible you were the one with the flush (from your opponent's perspective).

However, he flat called you. If we're gonna give him credit as someone who's capable of folding a hand, I say this call either says flush, or four to the flush draw. I would not mind a river bluff had the fourth heart NOT come in this particular scenario, as there's a good shot he doesn't have the flush and a brick would not have helped his four to the flush draw.

In this particular hand its a lose/lose situation to me. If he's a donkey, he'll probably call you down with a baby flush, so your bluff won't work. If he's a good player, he probably already has a flush or a flush draw, so the fourth heart on the river likely kills your bluffing opportunity.

I guess the one situation I could see based on the action you listed where a bluff COULD be successful is against a good player with a set. He might possibly play a set this way, and is hoping for the board to pair when the third heart hits (or just smoothcalls to see what your river action will be), and then a big river bet will most likely get him to lay his hand down.

I know my post was a little long and convuluted, so basically let me summarize what I'm trying to tell you. Yes, you can bluff when the only time your bet will get called is when you're beaten. However, I would recommend this only against a tight opponent, only when the action (working back in the hand) makes some sense that you could possibly have the hand you're representing, and lastly and more importantly, only when you have a 90% certainty of what your opponents hand is (and obviously be a hand that your tight opponents is willing to lay down).

So yes, there are certainly scenarios in poker where what you originally asked would be correct, just in my opinion, I believe them to be rather rare.

David