Can I call a river bet with T-high? - Page 5

#41 11-28-2005, 11:34 AM

Theres always the chance he was slow playing his trips off the flop...you cant just count out hands..and why risk it in a small 2 handed pot

kurosh · #42 11-28-2005, 12:25 PM

There's a couple responses here that are something along the lines of, "omg you have t-high, fish!! that is such a terrible call."

These responses piss me off for some reason. Take a moment to think about it instead of automatically assuming.

#43 11-28-2005, 01:18 PM

I know im being very generous for the opponent here. But it still looks like the only thing you are beating is an outright bluff by a complete garbage hand. The pot is tiny and the margin of error is big.

NLSoldier · #44 11-28-2005, 03:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I know im being very generous for the opponent here. But it still looks like the only thing you are beating is an outright bluff by a complete garbage hand. The pot is tiny and the margin of error is big.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know we are only beating a bluff. I know the pot is tiny. I dont care. Because I think we can be very very confident about the cards that he does not hold.

For those of you saying its a terrible call, would your answer changed if a third party went through the deck and flipped all the remaining aces, 2s, 3s, and 4s face up so that you knew in fact he did not have any of those cards? My whole point is that I am almost as confident that he doenst have any of those as I would be if they were flipped face up in front of me.

RunDownHouse · #45 11-28-2005, 04:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Calling is awful play, what do you think you can beat?

[/ QUOTE ]
Are you people even reading the thread? He gave very precise reasoning for why he is calling.

I am fish · #46 11-28-2005, 05:51 PM

Correct me if I overlooked some things, but the only holdings you beat are 98, 97, 96, 95, 87, 86, 85, 76, 75.
Chop with T7, T6, T5. Do you really think he will have exactly one of these holdings more than 25% of the time??

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't played much with this guy

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
His hand range here is gigantic. He is defending nearly any two. With the postflop action, I'm pretty sure he doesn't have a pair, except maybe a king. Nearly any two are peeling that flop. Ace-high bets the turn some of the time .

On the river, a king is clearly betting. Ace-high shouldn't bet, but maybe it does sometimes . Q-high probably doesn't bet because what better hand is folding? I am calling with A-high all the time here and I think most people would too. J-high bets some of the time to get rid of Q-high .

[/ QUOTE ]

In your analysis I just feel you are giving your opponent too much credit and assuming that he will play so rationally.

I like your line of thinking, I just think you would need to have a better read on your opponent to be more sure your assumptions are correct.

The play is marginal at best, IMO.

I feel you have a higher EV by betting the river as you only need your opponent to fold about 33% of the time.

Anyway, by your assumptions, you would have to be right on your call atleast 25% of the time for a call of his bet to be correct. So, he would definetely fold any of the holdings you'd beat by calling, plus you gain by getting T, J, Q high to fold some of the time.

#47 11-28-2005, 06:05 PM

Why the flop autoraise? I would opencomplete here except against a LAG/TAG, in which case I would fold. Even three-handed.

Played the way you did, I would bet the turn and check-fold the river, rather than check the turn and call the river.

Surfbullet · #48 11-28-2005, 06:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]

In your analysis I just feel you are giving your opponent too much credit and assuming that he will play so rationally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with fish here, I think you're going to see "bluffs" of his with a Q or J a not-insignificant amount of the time. Sometimes even an A. Betting an A is terrible here, but that doesn't stop it from happening.

If 1 bet is going in on the river I think we should be betting out. Personally, I'd probably c/f.

Surf

TheMetetron · #49 11-28-2005, 07:03 PM

Okay, I've thought about this a ton today and check/fold is my choice for best play. Check/calling is the worst option and betting out is the best.

And before anybody harps on me to read the thread, I already have. It just so happens that the correct play also happens to be the most obvious. You are assuming you opponent plays very, very rationally here and that is a huge mistake against someone you barely even know. It'd probably be a mistake against most 2+2ers even.

That said, I don't think the fact that the correct answer is so obvious makes this thread any less valuable... there were a lot of people jumping to the correct answer without thinking things through correctly first. Just wanted to say thanks to kurosh for getting some good debate going... nice hand to post.

NLSoldier · #50 11-28-2005, 07:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In your analysis I just feel you are giving your opponent too much credit and assuming that he will play so rationally.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with fish here, I think you're going to see "bluffs" of his with a Q or J a not-insignificant amount of the time. Sometimes even an A. Betting an A is terrible here, but that doesn't stop it from happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, this line of thinking I can agree with. Because I am usually the first to point out that most opponents are retarded. But, assuming we knew our opponent was rational, can anyone show me a good argument refuting my reasons for calling?