5/10 77

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
Against an unknown I default to value betting the river.

-DeathDonkey

[/ QUOTE ]

Our line is pretty weak-looking and hence I think villain will actually bet a lot of worse hands on the river anyway. Checking also gives us the added value of inducing bluffs from missed flush/straight draws hoping to fold out other missed draws.

So I think checking the river is slightly better than betting but I don't think betting is bad either. Obviously check-folding sucks.

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
Nice hand IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I definitely think we should bet the turn, as the combo of the safe turn card and the checked flop mean our hand is best a huge percentage of the time. Being in first position is nice as it looks like we may have missed a check-raise and so a lot of hands with two overcards to us are going to fold the turn, possibly incorrectly.

[DeathDonkey]

Seems to me we are disagreeing on whether "unknown 5/10 full opponent" is the not folding type, or the bluffing type. I have very limited experience in that game so if you say they bluff too much I'll concede the check/call, but more generally, bad poker players call too much, they don't bluff all that much, so I feel pretty safe in mercilessly value betting until I get a better read.

-DeathDonkey

[JacksonTens]

I think the river is quality. I've been experimenting with inducing a bit lately and this is a definate opportunity for it.

JT [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[toss]

But the thing here is the number of draws available on the turn. How many of them will villain call with and how many will villain bluff with? I can only see him calling sometimes with an Ace. On the other hand he'll have a flush draw or 8 high gutshot more often and theres no way he'll call with that.

[DeathDonkey]

You don't think he'll have a flopped pair very often?

-DeathDonkey

[toss]

Good point.