easy value bet on the end or check to induce bluff? 30 bellagio

[bender]

I am surprised that most people like checking this river. As bobbyi pointed, I don't think there is much value in inducing a bluff in this hand as it seems pretty umlikely that you would check fold from his point of view.
Additionally, I think virtually hands all hands that are beating you are correctly value betting against you when you check so there is no benefit to checking there. I'm betting.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
After you check-threebet the flop and lead the turn, I don't think anyone expects you to fold to a bet when you check the river. It looks like you are going to check and call. Even if he missed, there's a good chance he won't think it's worth bluffing if you check.

[/ QUOTE ]

so we've established that checking wont induce a bluff. but will betting get a call from a worse hand >50% of the time? given this action id say absolutely not. so which of the two has more value? a negative valued bet, or a 0 valued check/fold (or like i said earilier, check call if its 9:1 this guys nuts or your passive read is wrong)

Barron

[chaosuk]

Check folding just isn't going to happen here (esp against a lag), which is why I'd advocate betting. Bad river calls are commonplace and are, of sorts, insurance calls, for future hands. I'd rather bet in this spot, than check and 'hope' (forlornly) thatI'd fold to a bet.

chaos

[piggity]

Hey moneyshot,

What happened here is that you miraculously won the hand so you assumed you played it well. We've all done this. The correct play was to fold on the flop, as advocated by some very good posters. Don't let some of these guys' horrible spelling and grammar fool you -- they really know how to play limit hold'em.