150/300 hand

[lil feller]

I'm sure you mean well, but advocating a check/call in this situation against this type of opponent is just not very good advice.

If you were against an opponent whose PF range is much wider, and who would be more likely to bet part of this range that we beat, and who would be more likely to bluff raise with hands in that range that have zero showdown value, I could see the value in a check/call line.

Here, however, the villian has a narrow preflop range, and very limited post flop aggression. He is virtually never betting any hand on the river that hero is in front of, certainly not often enough to justify a call. This villian also is never bluff-raising this river. He will, however, call with many of his non-pair but showdownable hands.

The only reasonable choices for hero on this river is to bet/fold to collect from A-high hands and/or fold 88 or 99 and/or avoid showing his hand. Check/fold is also viable, but not optimal as this villian is likely to call with A-high.

The numbers your throwing out mean very little because you're not taking into account the cominations the villian is more likely to have played that way, and what he's likely to do with them.

lf

[Dave Mac]

these two posts are just two reasons why you are not good.
dave

[Shandrax]

That's of course correct. All the possible hands have to be analyzed in relation to villain's pre-flop selection. If I remember correctly then villain was on the button, so he will open with lots of hands.

The theory to judge the chances that I was using is rather simple:
There is a number of hands that beat you -> X
There is a number of hands that you can beat -> Y
There is a number of hands that can be logically excluded -> E

Your chances on the river are (Y-E)/X and if that is in line with the pot odds you are getting, then it's at least a call.

What you are saying is that E is very high, so the chances to win the showdown are extremely slim and that might well be the case. Even then it is not a clear fold. Given the pot odds you should still bluff-raise with the correct frequency.

Therefore the correct answer to the question is a percentage mix. Advice advocating a pure strategy like always check/call (like my own) or always bet/fold must be wrong.

[lil feller]

[ QUOTE ]
If I remember correctly then villain was on the button, so he will open with lots of hands.


[/ QUOTE ]

With a VPIP of only 18 in short handed play, I don't think is range is as wide as some might suggest.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore the correct answer to the question is a percentage mix. Advice advocating a pure strategy like always check/call (like my own) or always bet/fold must be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

This I can certainly agree with. I don't have the time/energy to do the math, but if the options are

bet/fold, check/fold, check/call I would say

{70, 20, 10}

lf

[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