Is this why I still play 10/20?

[Fantell]

I know we have the 2nd nut flush here, but what cards do people think he has if he 3 bets your river raise? Beyond putting him on a desperate bluff I don't see how we win when we call this. He'd have to have the T of hearts which means he's capping OOP PF with something like TT or AT?

Are you advocating the raise just because we'll be called with a weaker flush or a set often enough? If that's the argument, why the resistance to a bet/fold line?

Can someone explain this to me?

[wheelz]

well, when we raise we don't know that he's going to 3-bet. we raise because only one card in the deck can beat us and villain will pay off with anything. we call the 3-bet because the villain is too crazy and the pot now too big to fold for one more.

Why not raise his bet on the flop? He may fold if he's a mad LAG capping with TT, 99 preflop.

He may reraise with AK, KK or AA, in which case you know you are almost certainly beat. If he calls you, you know he has at least QQ. When the Q came on the turn you have even better reason to think you are beat and you could have folded.

But assuming you happened to call his bet on the turn and hit your flush on the river your raise is correct because he can't have a flush with Q set, K set, and AK (non heart), AA (non heart ace) and you're getting odds and those hands might payoff.

However once he re-raises you again on the river, there's no other hand he can have other than the nut flush. Even a very LAGgy LAG would not do it with 4 hearts on the board if they had a set. So I would say 13:1 would not be odds to call.

I think the flop-raise line would have saved you at least 1 BB. I don't think it's it's a discipline issue. I think about understanding the play, getting information on the opponents hand range cheaply, fitting it to the flop texture and looking at the odds.

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
Why not raise his bet on the flop? He may fold if he's a mad LAG capping with TT, 99 preflop.


[/ QUOTE ]

We don't want him to fold TT or 99.

I think its worth doing that to save bets later on. I personally think the downside is far greater if he has a hand, than what you could gain from TT staying around and letting him go to showdown.

[kiddo]

This guy is raising less then me preflop and he is not more then a bit to aggressive postflop.

Still u think he will bet into a preflop3bettor on this river without a heart or that he somehow got a low flushcard in his hand but for some reason capped with it preflop?

I would guess he will have A in this spot more then any other hand and even if he call with anything if we raise (which he will not) he needs to have A less then 1/3 if we will pay him off when he 3bets.

I think we raise this river not because we think it through but because of exactly what u say: "weak wackjob, weak". It just feels to weak to not raise 2nd best hand.

[geormiet]

I hear what you are saying, but usually this logic is superseded by the fact that there is 1 card in 45 that we are afraid of.

[kiddo]

yep, thats my point, we raise cause only 1 card can beat us, not because we think

I think the raise/call is right on the river.

However, I'm saying if the hero reraised him on the flop, the decision making would have been easier on future streets. Especially if it was bet-raise-raise on the flop.
He may have saved a bet on the turn if the villain went for c/r. Or had the villain continued to bet into hero on the turn then the hero could fold without too much grief. In this case villain probably has a AhK or a set giving hero only 8 outs to a flush. Though the villain could have garbage my guess is if one took a prob average of the hand range and outcomes there wouldn't be equity for a call on the turn using this line.

On the other hand if it had been 3bets on the flop AND the hero decided to CALL the TURN bet AND it was bet-raise-raise on the river I think you could argue for a fold. See what I'm getting at using a flop raise??

[kiddo]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the raise/call is right on the river.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hehe, what is this. Another poster saying what he thinks and backing it up with zero arguments.

It feels a bit stupid saying it again, but my main point was that we raise this river without trying to find an argument for doing it other then: "Oh, look, only 1 card can beat us, he cant have that, can he???"