Do I bet this river?

[GimmeDaWatch]

Assuming your read is right, there is a 1 in 7 chance you are beat, although it still seems like a very odd way for an "aggressive" player to be playing his set OOP. At any rate, the amount of money you will gain if he has a smaller full and calls outweighs the -EV if he happens to have you beat, I think its pretty much that simple. If you dont think he would c/r all-in with any other hand than 44, you can fold. Maybe you dont think you can bring yourself to fold Kings full even if you feel its correct and thats the point of this post. Even if that were so, betting is still +EV assuming he'll call, say $1500, with any boat.

[beckham9]

If he pot bets this river do you call?....probably yes

If he overbets this river do you call?....


i am guessing you bet and he raised and you called...he had quad 4's.....

I think you have to bet pot, if he raises then fold, he's got to be super balzy to reraise bluff if he has such a good read on you as you stated, he would also need to know and respect you graatly to try this type of bluff.

B9

[Cornell Fiji]

The question that I have for you is this: you are pondering not betting based largely because of his comment of "I don't like that card" when the K turned. You think that he knows that you have KK because he said that he didn't like the K on the turn.

Now, if he KNEW that the K on the turn made your trips then obviously it would be a -EV play for him to announce that (admittingly I don't play at these stakes but when I know my opponent's hand I surely don't announce it!) to you. Therefore at best we can assume that his comment that "that I don't like that card" was meant to induce some sort of tell out of you. Did you exhibit such a tell? Or do you believe that your action on the turn (and projected river action) rule(d) out AA, AK, and QQ meaning that although his comment was an attempt to get a read, your action would confirm his read?

Because of my experience with dishonest poker players I would say that his comment was made to try to get you to REPRESENT trip Ks (however this would be because he had flopped a set and possibly rivered quads) but not because he actually believed that you had them.

Moreover, If he said something to the effect of "I don't like that card" wouldn't that also mean that he would think that you would think that he thought that you held KK and therefore would play AA, AK, or maybe QQ as if you had KK (for that is what his comment makes you think that he thinks that you hold) thus making you want to play AA, AK, and QQ in a way that would represent KK and thus pay off to his flopped set? If this is the case I think you should bet as if you are representing KK, which is what you have, so I would value bet here because betting KK is really representing AA, AK, or QQ which is representing KK. (assuming he doesnt have quads this is why you will get a big value bet paid off because his comment was made to induce action from lesser hands... plus he has 9s full)


If you are as confident as you seem to be with your reads here I feel that you must make a value bet and muck to a reraise for the reasons discussed in other posts or, my perfered line of action, pot commit yourself with a bet of around 3.5k and call an all in ( I, being a mere mortal - and a lesser poker player, will pay off my whole stack to quads here every time)


I hope that this response is clear, you might have to reread it a few times to understand what I am trying to say, but I think that it is worded correctly.

What i am asking the poster is:
-What does the villain think that you have (and would he honestly make that comment if he really thought you had KK)
-What was the purpose of making that comment? (what action is he trying to induce? does he think that you will think it is an honest comment and therefore how does he think you will play AA, AK, QQ, and KK)
-What does he think that you think that he holds? (Does he realize that you will put him on an underset with that comment and is that his intention?)
-Would he REALLY check quads here? If I was at the table for this hand and saw quads and kings full go check-check on the river I would be at the cage before the dealer sent the next cards into the air.

[FoxwoodsFiend]

[ QUOTE ]


Because of my experience with dishonest poker players I would say that his comment was made to try to get you to REPRESENT trip Ks (however this would be because he had flopped a set and possibly rivered quads) but not because he actually believed that you had them.


[/ QUOTE ]
There is no doubt he is putting me on KK but is uncertian in his read. He called on the off chance I'm betting AK. But if he thinks he's getting me to represent KK, why would he check the river? He's called substantial flop and turn bets and he would be worried I would give up on the hand in light of this. So if he doesn't put me on KK he bets the river.
I think this whole idea that he's trying to get me to bluff is off the mark because he wouldn't count on me bluffing the river.


[ QUOTE ]

value bet and muck to a reraise for the reasons discussed in other posts or, pot commit yourself with a bet of around 3.5k and call an all in

[/ QUOTE ]
Why would you ever pot commit yourself in a situation where he would fold an inferior house for such a big bet (he is aware of how tight and solid a player I am) and I would lose 8k or so if he's beating me?

[FoxwoodsFiend]

I bet 500 on the river, he calls and flips over 99. I know 500 seems odd but the thinking was it was small enough for him to have to call even if he suspects I have KK (I can't be sure how much will blow him out of the water) while at the same time limiting the damage if he check-raises. I figured it signifies to villain that I'm not willing to call too much if he does have quads while possibly inducing a re-raise with 99 or 22. This way I don't have to fold to a raise so I get both the chance of him putting more money in with a weaker house c/r and limit the losses if he has quads.
Does anybody like this ridiculous underbet?

[BK_]

i dont. i think he will raise with an underhouse a very small portion of the time. you are underbetting so you can call a raise, but i think calling the raise is still -EV even with your bet size.

i also think betting larger is more +EV. i would estimate that the player you described would pretty often call 1500. maybe even 2000. i would pause a good amount of time on the river however, trying to sell the fact you MAY be trying to make a very thin value bet

[Louie Landale]

If he has a set on the river there are 3 ways each it can be 99 or 22 and only one way it can be 44; so if you KNOW he has a set you are a 6:1 favorite. Combine that with the uncertaintly of a set and the fact that he hasn't bet at all in this hand, I think you should gleefully try to put in all your money. Bet and HOPE he raises.

- Louie

[BK_]

[ QUOTE ]
If he has a set on the river there are 3 ways each it can be 99 or 22 and only one way it can be 44; so if you KNOW he has a set you are a 6:1 favorite. Combine that with the uncertaintly of a set and the fact that he hasn't bet at all in this hand, I think you should gleefully try to put in all your money. Bet and HOPE he raises.

- Louie

[/ QUOTE ]

no [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] some of the other posts above explain why this is wasting money.

[SlyAK]

I hate it. $500 smells so weak that he could re-raise all-in here and put you to the test. I think you left money on the table here because of this fear of quads.

But what do I know, I don't try to make the Hellmuthian laydowns...

Sly

[edtost]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anybody like this ridiculous underbet?

[/ QUOTE ]

nope. i think he calls more with 99 or 22, and will almost never bluff raise. there are only two ways this bet could be a good idea: if you weren't planning on folding to a c-r of a more reasonably sized bet, or if you thought a wierdplayed ak or aa might call for the 500.

personally, i like a quick bet of 2000, hoping he calls with the same speed, not giving the idea of thinking to him by taking time yourself.