KK on like worst river ever in the history of rivers - Page 4

kidcolin · #31 09-21-2005, 06:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just to be clear, I'm with you in the rank of options (bet/fold, check/call, check/fold), but my reasons for bet/folding have nothing to do with fold equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough... How about this: The chance that we fold a straight is icing on the cake that is bet/folding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Deal. Since there's a chance he thinks JUST enough to fold a 9. An ace never folds, though. Not unless it's Phil Hellmuth.

B Dids · #32 09-21-2005, 06:06 PM

I was trying to form a post saying that two pair might fold, but the more I thought about it the more I think you're right. Bet/Fold is pretty clearly the best option.

Obviously what I really did was bet/call in a moment of call call callCaaweawCAllll AWJEIaweji AAGGGRO TWOPLUSTWO ME HAVE SET ME CALL.

He showed down AcAx for the royal and about the most quizical played Aces ever or something. Basically I came within one retarded impulse call of losing as little as I could running KK into AA and a set into a royal. I have now tricked you all into responding to a bad beat post.

(not really, after the fact I was like "that was clearly wrong, but what's right, and the fact that he underplayed AA so much as part of why I was on the "2 pair does not call" line of thought).

SomethingClever · #33 09-21-2005, 06:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just to be clear, I'm with you in the rank of options (bet/fold, check/call, check/fold), but my reasons for bet/folding have nothing to do with fold equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough... How about this: The chance that we fold a straight is icing on the cake that is bet/folding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Deal. Since there's a chance he thinks JUST enough to fold a 9. An ace never folds, though. Not unless it's Phil Hellmuth.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. A lot of these guys think they are Phil Hellmuth. Never say never.

Surfbullet · #34 09-21-2005, 06:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Obviously what I really did was bet/call in a moment of call call callCaaweawCAllll AWJEIaweji AAGGGRO TWOPLUSTWO ME HAVE SET ME CALL.

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG this is hysterical. It gets funnier each time I see it! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]

He showed down AcAx for the royal and about the most quizical played Aces ever or something. Basically I came within one retarded impulse call of losing as little as I could running KK into AA and a set into a royal. I have now tricked you all into responding to a bad beat post.

(not really, after the fact I was like "that was clearly wrong, but what's right, and the fact that he underplayed AA so much as part of why I was on the "2 pair does not call" line of thought).

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Hand that man the "chump of the year" award. So much for making your AA work for you, huh?

The fact that he wont raise AA until it's a royal is good evidence that he's not going to be betting anything but hands that beat us when we check this river.

Surf

meanjean · #35 09-21-2005, 06:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
KJ/KT would definitely play this way. JT or QT, even Jx, Qx could if he's passive / afraid of AK on the turn.

Point being, he's not folding 2 pair here, and there are a few ways he could have it. He probably won't even raise an A because he'll figure he's either splitting or losing. You have an easy fold if raised, and you get value from hands that would check behind when you are called.

If you check-call he checks all worse hands, some better ones (a 9?) and bets all other better ones. This is straight from the sklanksy books - worse hands won't bet but they will call, and we don't have to pay off a raise.

Surf

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely disagree. I think worse hands will fold (2 pair), better ones will call (straights and weak flushes) and only strong flushes will raise. So you put in a bet get called by straights and weak flushes, losing one bet. Raised by strong flushes, losing 1 bet. And weaker hands will fold gaining zero. Checking gives you the opportunity to see the showdown for free...net gain of zero...the small chance that your opponent bluffs, gain of one bet. and you call a flush or straight losing 1 bet. There are 6 or 7 bets in the pot...I think a set will be good often enough to see the showdown.

I like this discussion but have a commute home...will check on it then

adamstewart · #36 09-21-2005, 06:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Easy check/call, IMO. (I don't really see what the issue is).

Adam

[/ QUOTE ]

This contributed exactly zero to the discussion. Care to elaborate?

Surf

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, I guess I just (wrongly) assumed people would know what I mean.

Sure, I'll elabourate:

When the river falls, Hero either has the best hand with his set of Kings - OR - He's beat by a straight or flush.

There's NO WAY hero is getting a straight or flush to fold for one more bet (especially given that, from the villain's perspective, there's only one card - A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] - that Hero could reasonably hold that would beat him).

Thus, the only benefit to betting this river is in hopes that a pair, or two pair, or smaller set will call. But, these holdings are far less likely than a straight or flush.

Generally, betting this river is only going to get worse hands to fold, and better hands to call.

Now, Hero's set of Kings is worth a showdown, as Villain may not have a straight or a flush. There's NO WAY I'm folding this river - I want a showdown, and hope for the best.

Check/calling has the advantage of:
(1) seeing the showdown
(2) possibly inducing a bluff/bet by a worse hand.
(3) not getting bluffed out of the pot.

I really can't see any better play for this river than check/call.

Adam

Surfbullet · #37 09-21-2005, 06:16 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I completely disagree. I think worse hands will fold (2 pair), better ones will call (straights and weak flushes) and only strong flushes will raise. So you put in a bet get called by straights and weak flushes, losing one bet. Raised by strong flushes, losing 1 bet. And weaker hands will fold gaining zero. Checking gives you the opportunity to see the showdown for free...net gain of zero...the small chance that your opponent bluffs, gain of one bet. and you call a flush or straight losing 1 bet. There are 6 or 7 bets in the pot...I think a set will be good often enough to see the showdown.

I like this discussion but have a commute home...will check on it then

[/ QUOTE ]

I respect your input. Some thoughts:

1) What hand is he possibly hoping you'll fold? Almost everything imaginable is up there. Is he really going to bluff > 15% of the time?

2) Think about how hard it is to fold Aces to a raise when you are pretty sure you are beat. Now we're talking about TWO PAIR, not one, and not a raise, just a bet. a guy who is no better than average at poker(ie, nowhere near as good as you, or as good at folding as you). Think about how many times you Clarkmeister the river and see middle pair. No way is 2 pair folding.

Surf

Danenania · #38 09-21-2005, 06:21 PM

I like a bet/fold. People are bad and like to call. You won't be bluff raised and it's very unlikely that a worse hand will bet if you check the river. The only other option is check/fold, but I think we will miss value too often from worse hands to make this viable.

kidcolin · #39 09-21-2005, 06:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Thus, the only benefit to betting this river is in hopes that a pair, or two pair, or smaller set will call. But, these holdings are far less likely than a straight or flush.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. He called hero's raise preflop. KQ-KT, QJ-QT, JT are definitely in that range. Not many flush hands are. Aces are definitely in his range, too, but they aren't raising the river much with just a straight on this board (and if they do it's an easy fold). But they will bet when checked to. Sets and two-pairs won't too often.

Surfbullet · #40 09-21-2005, 06:37 PM

Hey Adam,

Thanks for elaborating!

[ QUOTE ]
When the river falls, Hero either has the best hand with his set of Kings - OR - He's beat by a straight or flush.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
There's NO WAY hero is getting a straight or flush to fold for one more bet (especially given that, from the villain's perspective, there's only one card - A - that Hero could reasonably hold that would beat him).

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is also a pretty safe assumption. A 9 might fold once in a blue moon, but I doubt it.

[ QUOTE ]
Thus, the only benefit to betting this river is in hopes that a pair, or two pair, or smaller set will call. But, these holdings are far less likely than a straight or flush.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's where we differ I think. The set, 2pair, 1 pair hands aren't too likely. But, they have showdown value, and will call a bet. If you check to them, they are going to check behind - they are clearly not going to fold you, he just wants to see a showdown.

If we check, we let all those worse hands off the hook. We've announced we don't have a club, so he can confidently value-bet a [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. He has no reason to think we've decided to check-fold, this board hits a PFR hard...so our check is announcing "I'm getting to showdown! Care to charge me for it?"

It lets villain play perfectly against us. He bets his better hands, and checks his worse ones. Maybe he'll check a 9 through.

When we bet we deny him this positional advantage. His worse hands have to pay that bet to see the showdown. We were paying off anyway so the better hands don't benefit (we fold to the raise).

If he bluff-raises this river I tip my hat to him, Mr. Call-2-streets-postflop-to-raise-the-scariest-river-ever-on-a-bluff.

Surf