Way ahead or way behind?

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
the hand is well played, and the river is close. I don't think a bet is mandatory. Against an overaggressive player, betting the river is probably a mistake. Against a tight/passive player I like the bet.

the hand is nicely played.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to clarify, I am assuming we fold if a tight passive player raises?

Also should we even be running this line on a tight passive player when we are out of position?

[sthief09]

you're folding that to a raise against a relative unknown?

[stoxtrader]

yes, I think you can value bet vs a tight passive specifically becuase he won't raise with the same or any worse hands.

and yes, this line is also optimal on the flop and turn vs that type of player, where/why would you lead or put in a c/r? I guess you could lead the flop and fold to a raise if you knew he would only raise with AA/KK, but that is beyond tight-passive I think.

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
the hand is well played, and the river is close. I don't think a bet is mandatory. Against an overaggressive player, betting the river is probably a mistake. Against a tight/passive player I like the bet.

the hand is nicely played.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I would bet, and pay off a raise, against an overagressive player just about every time!

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the hand is well played, and the river is close. I don't think a bet is mandatory. Against an overaggressive player, betting the river is probably a mistake. Against a tight/passive player I like the bet.

the hand is nicely played.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I would bet, and pay off a raise, against an overagressive player just about every time!

[/ QUOTE ]

Tougher players will recognize your river bet as what it is and will raise you with AK.

[magithighs]

[ QUOTE ]
IMO, if you are someone who bets and raises a lot, throwing in check-call lines in certain spots is great, since you can count on your opponent bluffing and value-betting w/ worse hands (that may or may not have called bets) at far more than optimal frequencies.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like usual, I'm not good at expressing what's in my head -- much better at the table (good thing I don't have to explain what I did).

You've hit the nail on the head. It's not that I don't like the check-call line. I just need a very good reason for it, other than "I may be way ahead or I may be way behind" and can't decide, so I need to call this down.

Your table image at that table, as you've mentioned is a great way to befuddle your opponent and will keep them betting when they are behind, because your play suggests you would never call down with tptk. However, I would believe this is only +EV if you have that image and you have a very strong opponent who can bluff semi-bluff on every street. Yes, there are more of these players at this level, but I would say still less than 25% of players would keep betting with something like JJ right to the river.

As you mention though, if I have that betting/raising image and I'm up against a strong opponent, I like this line as I think it's +EV.

Cheers
Magi

[rigoletto]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
the hand is well played, and the river is close. I don't think a bet is mandatory. Against an overaggressive player, betting the river is probably a mistake. Against a tight/passive player I like the bet.

the hand is nicely played.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I would bet, and pay off a raise, against an overagressive player just about every time!

[/ QUOTE ]

Tougher players will recognize your river bet as what it is and will raise you with AK.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you basically agree with me?

[stoxtrader]

[ QUOTE ]


I think I would bet, and pay off a raise, against an overagressive player just about every time!

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, I think you win more by check calling vs this player than betting/calling a raise. ultimately it comes down to how often he will bet and raise a worse hand, so I guess the question then becomse *how* overaggressive* is he.

The times he does raise, how often is it a worse hand? for a passive player that number is close to 0% of the time. for an overaggressive player, the number is still pretty low.

[Nate tha' Great]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I think I would bet, and pay off a raise, against an overagressive player just about every time!

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree, I think you win more by check calling vs this player than betting/calling a raise. ultimately it comes down to how often he will bet and raise a worse hand, so I guess the question then becomse *how* overaggressive* is he.

The times he does raise, how often is it a worse hand? for a passive player that number is close to 0% of the time. for an overaggressive player, the number is still pretty low.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I've sort of made it a point lately to call down a raise if I bet into my opponent on the river, and the percentage of bluffs here is quite high.

[ike]

The "Way ahead or way behind" logic is fine. Situations frequently arise, and I think this is a good example, where you have little to gain by getting more aggressive as it will only cause the worse hands to fold and cost you money against the better ones. In these situations theres often no good way to know if you're ahead or not and trying to decide which you think it is and play accordingly is not aspiring to play better poker, its misunderstanding the situation and playing worse.