$20-$40 Oceanside Hand

[Tommy Angelo]

Hi Jim. A happy surge it was to see your name in the latest 2+2 font.

I would have bet the river and folded to a checkraise.

I would have bet the river because after the way the turn betting went down, I would expect a full house to bet out.

I would fold to a checkraise on the river, also because of the turn betting. If he has a flush, he indicated that he is already worried about a higher flush after you threebet the turn and he submissively declines to fourbet headsup. The last thing he wants to see is a pair on the river because that would put him in the familiar "if I wasn't beat before, I am now" pickle. If he can plow through that, emotionally and physically, and checkraise anyway with a flush (or less), in a situation where it is likely to be unthinkable in his mind that you would fold after all this fury, then all I can say is, Lennon bless 'em. He'll just have to take the pot.

I really missed our traditional Bellagio breakfast(s) at 11:30 AM during the WSOP this year with you and Morgan. Nothing is more disappointing to me than the spoiled expectation of free food. I'm going to pester Bob all the way until next year to make sure he shows.


Tommy

[anatta]

I am surprised he didn't check-raise you. Lucky for you, he didn't read your book. I know you have an example where your set is raised on the turn by a likely flush, and advocate check-raising the river when you hit. I think for sure if you know you aren't going to be check-raised, its a clear bet. I'd bet it anyways, but knowing its not a 2:1 proposition (which it would be for me, since I call in a second), really makes betting obvious.

Regarding the poker boom. I play that 20-40 game on the weekends, and its been the highest everytime I go there. No other San Diego casino or cardroom has started spreading higher games. The highest game remains the 30-60 kill in Chula Vista.

Interestingly, there are small buy in no-limit games now being spread at Viejas, Lucky Lady, and Oceans 11. This is a new thing, and I think its a result of the poker boom.

[Boris]

I played 40-80 at Ocean's 11 once last year. they had 3 players that were silent props. I would've been surprised if there wasn't collusion. The game was good though because of 3 players that had, IMO, too much money.

[Jim Brier]

I think he should have raised as well. But given that he didn't means that my risk of betting on the end has been reduced since I will not get check-raised when he has the better hand.

[andyfox]

A Brier and Sredni sighting in one thread, wow.

I'd have bet the river for the reasons eludicated in Tommy's wonderful reply. I probably would call his river check-raise, although Tommy's explanation for why a fold is in order is convincing.

If I knew he were the kind of meekish player to check-call with a full house on the river, I'd have no compunction whatsoever, if indeed I did anyway, about betting the river.

There are a lot of mid-limit games all the time at Commerce. But not a lot at the Bike. I find people all over the place talking about the World Series being shown on ESPN. When I stroll around Commerce, the lower limits section is jammed to the rafters, so perhaps your surmise that the people who are coming to poker are mostly at the lower limits.

As is I'm sure the case with everyone here who misses your posts, I hope we'll be seeing your name here more often and that you are well and doing well.

[Coilean]

Of course you like your river bet more if you know he won't check raise. It seems a little results oriented to justify a bet this way though, as I sure wouldn't be expecting any but your most passive opponents to check call with any hands that beat you on the river.

I do like the river bet, but not the post mortem "He won't check raise if I'm beat here, so that makes it better to bet" reasoning. The reason to bet is there's only 10 reasonable ways for him to have you beat (with the flopped set or runner runner quads), about 13 reasonable hands for him to have that you beat (KQd K9d Q9d Q8d 98d 97d 87d 86d 64d 43s), plus chances he overplayed something (a big diamond with a T) or was in there with something he shouldn't have been in there with that you can beat (Kxd Qxd 43).

In general, I think it's usually worth a bet anytime you're checked to on the river if you can think of at least as many reasonable hands that you can beat (and will call) as there are reasonable hands that beat you (even if they check raise). This is simply because I find most opponents aren't that reasonable, and the unreasonable hands you can beat (and be called by) generally far outnumber the unreasonable hands that beat you (and might check raise), particularly when your hand is the nut flush. They can't hang themselves if you won't give them the rope.