10/20 nl 3 handed calling station makes a river check raise

[mgsimpleton]

[ QUOTE ]
Looks so much like 22-44, Id have to call.

[/ QUOTE ]

that was actually exactly what i thought when he thought forever then decided to push. he was calling down my "AK" the whole time then got pissed at being counterfeit. it was the only logical reasoning for his line i could possibly muster. turns out i shouldn't even have tried to apply logic to this guy.

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ QUOTE ]
I've seen it a lot where people will take a 1 pair hand like AA checking all the way, only to make a huge check raise on the river, at which point, of course, they win a tiny pot, or lose a monster because only a hand which beats them will call.


[/ QUOTE ]

Um...didn't hero call with a 7 here on a 55997 board? Perhaps there may be more value to the play heads-up than you think, as everybody is significantly reducing their calling requirements.

[creedofhubris]

I have to concur with the masses that I see very, very little point in that river bet.

Particularly with position.

The key is that you have a very marginal hand, but one with showdown value. A bluff is not going to make better hands lay down. But because your hand is so thin, it's not a sane value bet to be making. Since you can neither bluff nor value bet, you need to check.

Glad it worked out, but don't do this in future.

[arod15]

looks like he played you great, fold no way you can call.

[BeeKay]

everyone has been saying your river bet has been pointless and you defend that this is a value bet because you put him on middle pair the entire hand. so then your call should be a sure thing. The fact that you made this river bet with A7 shows you are 100% sure you are ahead in the hand and imo i dont think that should change when some maniac pushes in $1400

[mythrilfox]

I think your thinking is somewhat flawed. Yes, logical players like everyone at this forum wonder: why would he check a boat in that spot?

But why would he check/raise all-in with 87o? Is it right to apply those kinds of logic to this kind of player? His check/raise makes no sense... in those terms of logic... with nearly any hand.

In his eyes I don't think you've been repping an overpair. He's called you down with crap before on triple barrel firings and won. In my mind I think it'd be possible he's checking a monster expecting you to bluff a third time, like you have done in the past.

So I would have folded this. The results are pretty confusing, obviously.

You left out an important piece of information, do you know how he plays top pair as opposed to middle pair? Does he just keep calling down or what? I think that might have factored into your decision, because you said you kept putting him on middle pair. And is he bad enough to think a 5 here is a "monster" because it's a full house?

edit: didn't think of 22-44. that does make the most sense here.

[mgsimpleton]

[ QUOTE ]
I think your thinking is somewhat flawed. Yes, logical players like everyone at this forum wonder: why would he check a boat in that spot?

But why would he check/raise all-in with 87o? Is it right to apply those kinds of logic to this kind of player? His check/raise makes no sense... in those terms of logic... with nearly any hand.

In his eyes I don't think you've been repping an overpair. He's called you down with crap before on triple barrel firings and won. In my mind I think it'd be possible he's checking a monster expecting you to bluff a third time, like you have done in the past.

So I would have folded this. The results are pretty confusing, obviously.

You left out an important piece of information, do you know how he plays top pair as opposed to middle pair? Does he just keep calling down or what? I think that might have factored into your decision, because you said you kept putting him on middle pair. And is he bad enough to think a 5 here is a "monster" because it's a full house?

edit: didn't think of 22-44. that does make the most sense here.

[/ QUOTE ]

first of all, yes i think he would raise with top pair but call down with inferior holdings... weird but true.

as far as the not applying logic, i see where you're coming from, but i think it's unfair to say that you can't apply any logic to these players. even the most feeble-minded of poker players knows that it is good to get paid off on huge hands... and he was the kind of guy that seemed like with a monster he would bet... didn't seem good enough to check a monster even if he thought i was bluffing.

i want to share a story that's related partially and partially just because it's hilarious. i think it helps to understand the logic of these bad calling stations a lot though.

i'm at the borgata with QQ, flop is T73 rainbow, i bet out full pot in 4 way pot, called by one guy. turn is a 6, i check, he goes all in. i study him long and hard and decided he seemed weak on the flop so i call. he flips up 666. now i don't usually tilt at bad beats but i was so confused and ready to leave. this conversation ensues:

me: why did you call me with 2 outs???
him: i thought you were bluffing
me: if you thought i was bluffing, why did you go all in on the turn????
him: i hit trips!

[nate1729]

[ QUOTE ]
turns out i shouldn't even have tried to apply logic to this guy.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
as far as the not applying logic, i see where you're coming from, but i think it's unfair to say that you can't apply any logic to these players.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're a funny kid.

[Dr. StrangeloveX]

me: why did you call me with 2 outs???
him: i thought you were bluffing
me: if you thought i was bluffing, why did you go all in on the turn????
him: i hit trips!

awesome.

[durrrr]

if you dont bet this hu on the river please come play me

-durrrr