Yet another QQ hand

[benkath1]

[ QUOTE ]
Well here's the unsurprising conclusion:

<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, MP1 calls.

River: (7.20 BB) 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, MP1 calls.

Final Pot: 9.20 BB

Results in white below: <font color="#FFFFFF">
Hero has Qh Qc (one pair, queens).
MP1 has 9h Ad (one pair, aces).
Outcome: MP1 wins 9.20 BB. </font>

Sometimes I wonder if the fish simply let us hang ourselves in situations like these. Naaaaah.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, your river bet is a waste. Either check call or check fold. When I get in a spot like this I think "what kind of hand will he call me with?" If you check and he checks then yay, but if you bet and he raises then you've wasted one bet and maybe 2 (if you are anything like me and have a high WSD % [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]).

[silkyslim]

check/call river?

[Valuebettingtheriver]

Betting the turn is good, since if you are raised you know to fold on the river if you do not improve. The river bet is ok too since I am thinking that you want to show down this hand. Checking and calling is an option here. I personally would check/fold, with two overcards and a straight. I dont think a fish would bet this river unless he is really laggy or he has an A K or better.

[Eeegah]

[ QUOTE ]
What does a river bet accomplish?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the guy was gonna raise me with his pair, I would have expected it on the turn. When he just called, I figure he may have the A or K, but he could also have the T, 88 or nothing at all. One of those river value bets Miller writes about--even with two overcards I think my hand is at least marginal.

Edit: tinhat, what would check/fold accomplish? Checking the river would induce a bluff from damn near anyone--we're just asking them to take the pot.

[tinhat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What does a river bet accomplish?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the guy was gonna raise me with his pair, I would have expected it on the turn. When he just called, I figure he may have the A or K, but he could also have the T, 88 or nothing at all. One of those river value bets Miller writes about--even with two overcards I think my hand is at least marginal.

Edit: tinhat, what would check/fold accomplish? Checking the river would induce a bluff from damn near anyone--we're just asking them to take the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never played that limit but I still disagree; and certainly not if your "passive" characterization is truly correct. Betting the river with your hand to prevent a bluff I think is a very poor choice because in this instance, that's about all you can beat.

ToP (pg 202) says of deciding whether or not to bet river HU: "what are your chances of winning the last bet when you are called"; the bottom of pg 209 says: "check/fold when you are not the favorite and your opponent is one who will almost always bet only with a hand that beats yours."

By definition passive players generally don't raise winning hands and they don't call down with losing hands - this means our friend has something. And with (don't have the hand up) 4th best hand IIRC, your chances of winning the river bet are poor; so you shouldn't bet it. In ToP terms, you do NOT want to be called here (a.k.a. bluffing).

It's also the reason I say check/fold. A passive player generally isn't bluffing or betting edges - he's normally calling/betting pretty good hands. Your hand isn't good enough to go up against a passive player's good hands here (IMO) and for that reason it isn't good enough to call his river bet...

Mike

[turaho]

[ QUOTE ]
I've never played that limit

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is key. This level is chock-full of donks, and I think you'll see a T, small pocket pair, or god-knows-what bet this river if checked to enough times to make check/call the best option.

If villain is a smart player, I'd consider check/folding. But how many smart players will be the first to cold-call an UTG raise and then continue past the turn without a hand strong enough to raise?

Edited to add: missed the flush draw that came in. Yeah, if the villain is willing to bet this board if checked to, you're probably beat unless he's a super-donk. I hate folding this HU when the opponent has shown no aggression, but villain would have to have balls of steel to bet third pair or worse on a three flush board with two overcards against a preflop aggressor.

[TomBrooks]

Check/call because you have 2 outs to a set and 4 to a straight. You could bet but you might get raised by an ace and I wouldn't want to pay double for the draw.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What does a river bet accomplish?

[/ QUOTE ]

If the guy was gonna raise me with his pair, I would have expected it on the turn. When he just called, I figure he may have the A or K, but he could also have the T, 88 or nothing at all. One of those river value bets Miller writes about--even with two overcards I think my hand is at least marginal.

Edit: tinhat, what would check/fold accomplish? Checking the river would induce a bluff from damn near anyone--we're just asking them to take the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have SSH on me right now, but I'm pretty sure that QQ with both the ace and the king on the baord and the flush draw coming in on the river makes your hand "at least marginal". It's more like "just worse than marginal".

You called him "more passive than usual". Why would you expect this guy to raise you with a pair?

Your logic is all over the place, and you apparently have a huge problem because of it. I think you should study more and play less for a little while.