River bet - AK unimproved

[Wynton]

These posts remind me of something someone here (don't remember who) once said, that seemed very important. I'll try to paraphrase, without losing the essence of the point.

Basically, the idea is that, when we underplay our hands, we certainly disguise the strength of our hand, and it's easy to see how that can pay off. But by disguising our hand, we also run the risk of tricking ourselves. We've given out false info and that can make it harder to read our opponents' reactions.

Here's one more thing to mull over. In the hand in question where we have AK, when do want our opponent to fold, if at all? Frankly, I have not figured out the answer to this question, and I think it might be significant to deciding the optimal play.

[Guruman]

back to the river for a moment...

Unless this particular villain has seen you specifically checkraise a flop and lead every street without a pair, I don't think he can call you with much you beat here.

If he has a reason to think you're FOS that's one thing. If he's just a standard lag without a read on you, that river bet is probably a bad move.

I know that I would only call you down with AK, AQ, Ax[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img](which I would fold on the river), and a pp or better if I suspected you to be capable of this.

If I did not, then my range would get narrower.

I don't think I bet that river if this is my first blinds tangle with anyone trying to play poker. It may work as a value bet vs a total megafish. Anyone else has at least a pair here IMO.

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]
Kinda off topic, but could you explain why you are playing Party 5/10 tables?

The only reasons I could come up with are that you don't have enough time to build a real bankroll, or that you are just highly risk adverse.

[/ QUOTE ]

to be honest I think questions like this (though I see them a lot) are in poor taste. If people want to share their bankroll strategy/woes that's up to them but it's really none of our business what games people choose to play or how they spend their poker $$$.

just my humble opinion.

[McGahee]

I really like your posts re: PF in this thread enough so that I'll probably incorporate it into my game.

What's with the river though? I want to say you're trying to fold a better hand just to be different, but that cannot be the case given the board texture. I don't like the parlay of a 47/21 player having a worse Ace and also calling with it especially when you weigh it against the times he'll bluff when you check, so I don't understand the bet unless you have a read that he'll call with most Kings.

[donger]

[ QUOTE ]

Scenario I: I 3-bet preflop and he calls. I autobet the flop.

Scenario II: I call preflop and checkraise his autobet.

Count the bets in each scenario. There is no lost value. The pot size is the same in each case and Villain must make a decision about my flop aggression.

What are the differences between the two approaches?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think that people see more turns when checkraised than they do when 3-bet and led into.

The problem I am having with the never-threebet strategy is that your threebet and flop autobet is going to be causing incorrect folds from the villain on flops you don't have the stomach to checkraise. I think by being passive and NOT taking the intiative, you are giving him opportunities to easily outplay you with the autobet.

If you take the intiative, you're going to win all the pots like this that you would normally lose:
You: 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]
Opp: 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

flop: A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Are you checkraising flops like these?

[donger]

[ QUOTE ]
5/10 6-max (4-handed)

Villain is 47/21, postflop he is loose and moderately aggressive.

Hero is BB with A [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]K [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img].

Preflop: Button raises and Hero calls.

Flop (4 SB): Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 4 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (2 players)
Hero checks, Button bets, Hero raises, and Button calls.

Turn (4 BB) 8 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (2 players)
Hero bets and Button calls.

River (6 BB) 2 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] (2 players)
Hero bets ...

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this river decision boils down to whether villain is betting showdown-able hands like AJ or AT if you check to him on the river. If he's doing that, it probably opens his range up enough that you're less of an underdog by check-calling than by betting. If he's going to showdown everything you beat and bet everything you don't (barring rare bluffs), you're better off betting. You already know this, though.

[imported_leader]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, the idea is that, when we underplay our hands, we certainly disguise the strength of our hand, and it's easy to see how that can pay off. But by disguising our hand, we also run the risk of tricking ourselves. We've given out false info and that can make it harder to read our opponents' reactions.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an interesting point, but I believe this is a matter of experience. The reason that it feels easier to play post flop with strong hands when we 3-bet is because we've done it so often. If we autobet after a 3-bet and villain raises, we have a general idea of what to do because we’ve been in spots like that hundreds if not thousands of times. Therefore, I don't think post flop is necessarily harder to play in absolute terms. It's just harder to play when you're new at it.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
If you take the intiative, you're going to win all the pots like this that you would normally lose:
You: 6 6
Opp: 7 9

flop: A K T

Are you checkraising flops like these?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a misleading example because you showed us the 97. Let's pretend we don't know what he has for a moment. Your hand is 66 and the flop is AKJ.

Scenario 1: You 3-bet preflop, autobet the flop, and bet the turn. This is an investment of 2.5 BB and if he has 97 he probably folded the flop, while if he has Q8 he probably folded the turn. Of course if he has something good this may not be going so well.

Scenario 2: You called preflop and he autobets the flop. You have invested 0.5 BB and you now have the option of investing the other 2 BB by checkraising the flop and betting the turn.

Scenario 2 has not given up anything. Go ahead and bluff if you think it's a good play and you'll be right back with scenario 1, winning or dying depending on what he has.

The difference in Scenario 2 is you have options here because your money isn't already in the pot. You can use your poker skill to evaluate Villain's range and postflop play. You're not stuck bluffing your money away against the wrong Villain. You can throw your hand away against a tight raiser and save 2 BB. You can call down against a wild man who will fire three barrels with 97 unimproved. You can call the flop and donk the turn as a cheaper bluff that works just as well against some players. You can call the flop and checkfold twice against a timid player who won't fire again without an ace.

If you do choose to fold your hand for sensible reasons and he turns out to have 97 that would be unfortunate. But it's no different than making a good fold on the river only to discover you've been bluffed. It's part of playing winning poker and you can't let it bother you. Similarly making an all-out assult on the AKJ flop is going to win some pots. But if your poker judgment is that it's a negative EV bluff versus this villain then you don't do it and you accept the end result with grace when he turns up with 97.

[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
This is an interesting point, but I believe this is a matter of experience. The reason that it feels easier to play post flop with strong hands when we 3-bet is because we've done it so often. If we autobet after a 3-bet and villain raises, we have a general idea of what to do because we’ve been in spots like that hundreds if not thousands of times. Therefore, I don't think post flop is necessarily harder to play in absolute terms. It's just harder to play when you're new at it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good point and this is one of the reasons I'm experimenting. Before you can shift gears you need to have more than one gear. That means gaining experience in playing postflop after different types of preflop play.

[Wynton]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is an interesting point, but I believe this is a matter of experience. The reason that it feels easier to play post flop with strong hands when we 3-bet is because we've done it so often. If we autobet after a 3-bet and villain raises, we have a general idea of what to do because we’ve been in spots like that hundreds if not thousands of times. Therefore, I don't think post flop is necessarily harder to play in absolute terms. It's just harder to play when you're new at it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Good point and this is one of the reasons I'm experimenting. Before you can shift gears you need to have more than one gear. That means gaining experience in playing postflop after different types of preflop play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think that there's a bit more to it than just playing in an unfamiliar style, though that is certainly a big issue in my mind.

Another aspect is that our opponent may not be familiar with this style. This might sound like an entirely good thing, but I think that there is a drawback, at least against some opponents. If our opponent is confused, it really is going to make it harder to read his actions.

To put it differently, representing our hand in the "standard" way, with an appropriate amount of aggression, I believe, leads us to relatively predictable options (for better or worse); underpresenting our hand might create more options, but the additional options create additional issues and quandaries.

Maybe it sounds weak to argue that we should take certain actions because it makes life simpler. But aren't we often making the very same type of argument, when we suggest, for example, that someone should have raised, c/r or reraised one street because if helps define the action for the subsequent street?