150/300 hand

[Paluka]

BK why do you dismiss the possibility of check and fold? Don't you think this guy would take a free showdown with ace high? Your hand certainly looks like a missed draw or a pair that plans on calling a bet.

[mike l.]

check fold is not as good because this player sounds like he will call with A high every time.

[Paluka]

[ QUOTE ]
check fold is not as good because this player sounds like he will call with A high every time.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't the only factor that matters. You need to know how often he has ace high, how often he'll check a better hand on the river, if he'll ever fold a better hand, etc...

[Shandrax]

Forget my previous posting!

If you check and he bets there is $1600 in the pot and it costs $300 to call = 5.33:1

What can you beat?
A-K (16)
A-Q (16)
K-Q (16)
Q-9s (4)
Q-8s (3)
A-xs (32)
K-xs (32)
6-6 (12)
4-4 (12)
2-2 (12)
BLUFF
= 155 + x

What beats you?
A-A (12)
K-K (12)
Q-Q (12)
J-J (6)
T-T (6)
9-9 (12)
8-8 (6)
7-7 (6)
5-5 (6)
A-J (12)
K-J (12)
Q-J (12)
A-T (12)
K-T (12)
Q-T (12)
J-T (9)
J-9 (12)
T-9 (12)
J-8 (9)
T-8 (9)
9-8 (12)
6-4 (16)
= 229

There are 229 combinations to beat you. Given the 5.33:1 odds you only need 43 combinations to beat him order to break even. If you scratch some foolish combinations that will never go to the river (2-2, Q-8s and such) from the list and leave him with just 2 high overcards (A-K, A-Q, K-Q) you are still well over 43 combinations that you can beat and bluffs on his part are not even counted.

Without much of a read on the opponent I can't see how a fold in this situation can be justified. Sorry, but it's a clear check/call and nothing else.

If I am wrong on this, then I will throw my copy of "Play Poker like the Pros" out of the window [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[bicyclekick]

I don't dismiss it. I don't know why I didn't make a comment on it in my post, just forgot I guess.

I think check/fold is better than everything except bet fold.

I think it's decently close but I think betting is superior.

[chaosuk]

I reckon you dismiss bet-call too easily here; either way I don't much differentiate between either bet-call or bet fold, simply because the river raise seems so unlikely here. It's this unlikeliness that can mislead us, we may find his actions to be a bluff-raise to be only 1 in 100, but if he only raises 1 in 20? This is obvious Bayesian logic (& and I'm not suggesting you are rationalising '1 in 6 bluff' any other way here), but on the fly these unlikely events can fool us so easily. I'd be very surprised to see our, presumably non-creative opponent, raise the river but call the turn with an top pair over-pair, pre-river set. There are so many cards that scupper the delayed (river) raise for this guy. I think I'd like even money 55 fron this non-agg oppo, though he might not even be there with it, under which suspicion I'd simply have to call. That all said, overall it makes precious little differnece between bet-call and bet fold, because the latter is so unlikely.

Also, I'd find check-calling quite hard, and so even check-folding was the slightly better play over, say, bet-folding, I'd still prefer the latter becasue I know that I'd misplay the check fold strategy (i.e. check-call) too often, the cost of which must be a consdieration when you determine which strategy to deploy.

Off for a couple of days, but I'll look in later.

regards

chaos