River play (crossposted)

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
To those hoping to fold AK:
9 combos of AK
6 combos JJ
6 combos 99
6 combos 88

For the EV of a bet to be 0 (assuming we can always safely fold to a check/raise) solve for x in:
x/27 * 3.4 + 18/27 * (-1) = 0.
x=5.3.
Villain has to fold AK 5.3/9 times, or 59% of the time. I'm not sure whether it happens that often. This villain must have an understanding of pot odds, and knew they weren't there if he had to hit to win, so you are depending on his thinking that you won't bet AK again on the river.

I stand by my check, but given that it doesn't take much to turn this into a bet (remove 88 from the range, or believe that villain will often fold AK) I agree that it is close. If villain's range extends to include raising 77 UTG+1 then you have to check, unless you think that AQ will often call you.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post is pretty sweet.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To those hoping to fold AK:
9 combos of AK
6 combos JJ
6 combos 99
6 combos 88

For the EV of a bet to be 0 (assuming we can always safely fold to a check/raise) solve for x in:
x/27 * 3.4 + 18/27 * (-1) = 0.
x=5.3.
Villain has to fold AK 5.3/9 times, or 59% of the time. I'm not sure whether it happens that often. This villain must have an understanding of pot odds, and knew they weren't there if he had to hit to win, so you are depending on his thinking that you won't bet AK again on the river.

I stand by my check, but given that it doesn't take much to turn this into a bet (remove 88 from the range, or believe that villain will often fold AK) I agree that it is close. If villain's range extends to include raising 77 UTG+1 then you have to check, unless you think that AQ will often call you.

[/ QUOTE ]

This post is pretty sweet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but I think it has several fundamental errors.

Rob

[SmileyEH]

This post assumes villian plays all those hands the same way, which is definitely not the case.

-SmileyEH

[thejameser]

check is the easy answer. but i think with a player like this holdings could be narrowed down to 99 or AJ-AK. a straightforward guy would cap with a big PP right? if i knew his WTSD% it may sway me to bet. regardless i may like bet anyway.

[callmedonnie]

Doesn't the post also rule out hands like KQ, AJ, AQ as possibilities?

It is still sweet.

[B Dids]

Given the texture of this board, I think we hear from hands beating us often enough that this is a value bet with some FE vs a chop. Basically what everybody else has said.

[sfer]

How is check winning?

[Argus]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
Doesn't the post also rule out hands like KQ, AJ, AQ as possibilities?

It is still sweet.

[/ QUOTE ]
I left those out because of OP's description that villain
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En réponse à:</font><hr />
is an ok, straightforward, not tricky player. He doesn't raise garbage-ish hands preflop. He's fairly passive postflop.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't expect a player with that description to call with those hands. I'd be very interested in a calculation similar to mine with different assumptions that lead to a bet being clearly correct.

Although SmileyEh says that there is danger in assuming the Villain plays his pair hands this way, he could be scared of the 3-bet and just be check/calling the whole way. He is described as passive. The more pairs you can eliminate from villains range the more attractive a bet is. I just happen to think that you can't eliminate enough (or get called by worse hands enough) that a bet is profitable.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't the post also rule out hands like KQ, AJ, AQ as possibilities?

It is still sweet.

[/ QUOTE ]
I left those out because of OP's description that villain
[ QUOTE ]
is an ok, straightforward, not tricky player. He doesn't raise garbage-ish hands preflop. He's fairly passive postflop.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't expect a player with that description to call with those hands. I'd be very interested in a calculation similar to mine with different assumptions that lead to a bet being clearly correct.

Although SmileyEh says that there is danger in assuming the Villain plays his pair hands this way, he could be scared of the 3-bet and just be check/calling the whole way. He is described as passive. The more pairs you can eliminate from villains range the more attractive a bet is. I just happen to think that you can't eliminate enough (or get called by worse hands enough) that a bet is profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

The sort of player who you can't imagine folding AK 59% of the time on this river isn't folding AQ and AJ 100% of the time. That's very important.

Rob

[baronzeus]

[ QUOTE ]
How is check winning?

[/ QUOTE ]

ppl are confused [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] they think we have A4 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]