5/10 Hand (Boring Title; Interesting Hand)

[rustyboy]

I see the opponant as a 4 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]5 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] the whole way. If he is trying to convey that he has a hand like this, he did a good job, and then the check-check looks right, as you are only getting called by a better hand.

[ML4L]

Hey all,

Thanks again for all of the replies. BB showed 88 and took the pot.

I'd be interested to hear what other people think of BB's line. Clearly, it's unconventional. But, is it unconventional and good, unconventional and bad, or somewhere in between...?

ML4L

[turnipmonster]

my initial reaction to villian's river play is it sucks, there are lots of hands that will call him and lose and he won't induce a bluff enough to make up for this, as opponent will correctly be gunshy about bluffing the river after getting checkraised on the turn. as always I am interested to hear dissenting opinions, but with 88 I bet this river every time.

--turnipmonster

[technologic]

it's possible that the villain pegged the hero on a draw that didn't get there and was trying to induce a bluff on the river.

if villain also thinks that hero is somewhat strong, ie has two pair, he could also check there and the hero may bet out and he could safely call, instead of running the risk of being raised out of a pot with the best hand.

however i do agree with turnipmonster, that his line was a bit strange, check raising the turn allowing draws to get in cheaply. villain may have been weak tight, ie wanted to just see if his set was good against a possible straight as cheaply as possible.

i don't think villain is checkraising here unless the river bet is obscenely small, so his goal imo is check calling. it all depends on his read of the opponent to determine if his line is good/bad? i think it can swing either way.

[Usagi_yo]

I think the villian played his hand terribly. He played his hand like it was really weak, or like a strong hand being played wrong. Thus there was absolutely no reason for you to bet on the end unless you wanted to bluff a busted draw.

He on the other hand had a much better opportunity to bet and get called on the end then a check raise. Or he could have simply checkraised a substantial amount on the turn.

He may have been seeing boogey men under the bed and was afraid of the straight or the flush getting there.

I think checking on the end to induce a bluff from a busted draw looks pretty when it works, but I rarely see it pulled off.

[Rococo]

Hero could have a huge range of hands here.

If he has xJ [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], xT [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] or T [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]8 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], he might call a small bet and he probably will check behind if given the opportunity.

If he has J [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]T [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] or an underset, he almost certainly will call a bet and he may or may not check behind depending on what kind of player he is.

Now lets think about the hands that BB is losing to. Checking may allow BB to play a smaller pot with 67 or 79. I think that the likelihood that Hero has TT or JJ is pretty low because I would have expected a raise preflop from the Button.

BB probably would have raised 44, 55 or 67 on the flop because of the fear that another card might make a diamond draw, or more importantly, kill his action. Still, I think these hands are possibilities.

A small blocking/value bet sounds better to me than trying to induce a bluff. Frankly, I'm not that anxious to give Hero a chance to put me to the test anyway.

[KaneKungFu123]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey all,

Thanks again for all of the replies. BB showed 88 and took the pot.

I'd be interested to hear what other people think of BB's line. Clearly, it's unconventional. But, is it unconventional and good, unconventional and bad, or somewhere in between...?

ML4L

[/ QUOTE ]

So Villian just called here? That is pretty horible...

[Chaostracize]

I agree. This was definitely a CR whiff. Although... opponent will get cheaper showdowns in the future...?

[cero_z]

Hi CF,

[ QUOTE ]
You are saying conflicting things, you (along with many other replies to this thread) keep saying that the villain will put the hero on a busted flush draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I never once said anything about that. I didn't think it was the case, either. And I stand by my advice to check behind on the river, despite Mike's assessment, and the general consensus that he's right among very smart NL folks here.

Again, I'll state my reasoning: It's not that he is behind the majority of the time; he's not. It's that he is behind the majority of the time HE IS CALLED. Many players will throw away 8s and 5s to a value bet (1/2 pot)on the river. A bigger bet will be better, since it could be read as a bluff more readily, but I think it's a bad time for that play.

The way I see this hand, it should be clear to both of them that Villain doesn't have a straight; as Mike pointed out, he would have lead on the river. But it is not at all clear that the Hero doesn't have a straight; he definitely could play a straight this way, and Villain must respect that. As I said before, Villain has very clearly represented AT LEAST 2 PAIR. He knows this; and he knows that Hero knows it. So, if Hero makes a bet, Villain cannot like 2 pair. Villain knows that Hero can bet a set with impunity, since he's clearly not up against a straight. And of course, Hero could have a straight, or even JT/T8. So if Villain has anything less than Tens up, I don't see him calling a bet. If he has a set, he'll call everything except that he may occasionally fold to a huge bet (but probably not). And yes, Hero could be betting a busted flush draw, though it would take a lot of heart in this case, since Villain has played his hand very strongly so far. I don't think Hero gets nearly the percentage of calls by a worse hand or folds by a better hand that he needs to make a bet profitable.

[KaneKungFu123]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi CF,

[ QUOTE ]
You are saying conflicting things, you (along with many other replies to this thread) keep saying that the villain will put the hero on a busted flush draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I never once said anything about that. I didn't think it was the case, either. And I stand by my advice to check behind on the river, despite Mike's assessment, and the general consensus that he's right among very smart NL folks here.

Again, I'll state my reasoning: It's not that he is behind the majority of the time; he's not. It's that he is behind the majority of the time HE IS CALLED. Many players will throw away 8s and 5s to a value bet (1/2 pot)on the river. A bigger bet will be better, since it could be read as a bluff more readily, but I think it's a bad time for that play.

The way I see this hand, it should be clear to both of them that Villain doesn't have a straight; as Mike pointed out, he would have lead on the river. But it is not at all clear that the Hero doesn't have a straight; he definitely could play a straight this way, and Villain must respect that. As I said before, Villain has very clearly represented AT LEAST 2 PAIR. He knows this; and he knows that Hero knows it. So, if Hero makes a bet, Villain cannot like 2 pair. Villain knows that Hero can bet a set with impunity, since he's clearly not up against a straight. And of course, Hero could have a straight, or even JT/T8. So if Villain has anything less than Tens up, I don't see him calling a bet. If he has a set, he'll call everything except that he may occasionally fold to a huge bet (but probably not). And yes, Hero could be betting a busted flush draw, though it would take a lot of heart in this case, since Villain has played his hand very strongly so far. I don't think Hero gets nearly the percentage of calls by a worse hand or folds by a better hand that he needs to make a bet profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Hero has a straight here just about never.