River decision

[morgan]

I had the following situation come up earlier tonight. I had 2-pair on 6th street and it was completely exposed. My oponent had a 4-straight (also all on board) and I was certain he didn't yet have a straight. On 7th I filled up and I couldn't decide if I should bet out or check and hope he bets.

This is obviously dependent on the type of opponent you're up against (e.g. one who likes to bluff, or one who can fold a straight when bet into in this situation, etc.). But what are your thoughts?

In this case I ended up checking. I suppose I will be dramatic and post the result later...

Morgan

[Andy B]

Usually bet. Opponent might be afraid to bet a straight into your scary board, but will always call with it. An oblivious opponent might raise with a straight, allowing you to three-bet.

[patrick dicaprio]

i dont see the benefit to checking here. even if your opponent has a straight he probably wont bet. but he will call.

pat

[SittingBull]

will bet if U check AND will call your checkraise,then check.
If u think he will check when u check,then bet.
If u think he will bet when u check,BUT will not call your checkraise,then bet.
If u have NO knowledge of your opponent,then bet .
Hence,75% of the time [img]/forums/images/icons/laugh.gif[/img] U will bet out and 25% of the time u will check.

Happy pokering, Sitting Bull

[morgan]

Thanks for the replies. It seems that people believe that betting is over-all better play. My first instinct was to bet out. But when the situation came up it all of a sudden crossed my mind that the majority of the time my opponent won't hit his straight and will simply fold if I bet. However all those times he misses his straight he may be tempted to try a bluff, as it is the only way he can now win.

Anyway, I ended up giving it a shot. It was just a friendly home game, so I felt it was a safe enough time to try something new out. After thinking for a long time he bet. I happily raised and he folded. So in this case I suppose it worked to get me an extra bet (though I don't actually know if he got the straight or not). But as Andy pointed out I may have missed the off-chance of winning 2 or 3 bets if I come out betting and he raises. In this case I knew the guy well enough and he wouldn't do that.

In any case you guys are making me think it is probably better overall to bet out. I've probably been playing too much Hold 'Em recently, where inducing a bluff seems a key strategy.

Morgan

[Andy B]

Opponent is unlikely to bluff, as almost everybody calls with two pair on the end, and he knows that you have at least two pair.

[morgan]

Andy, I think you are right -- I wouldn't try that bluff. But at the time I just made a split second decision. In retrospect it doesn't make much sense. I think I was just trying to be fancy [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img] .

Morgan

[patrick dicaprio]

it is a rare player who will bluff a busted straight when another player has two pair. so i dont think it is too likely.

Pat

[Al_Capone_Junior]

With two pair on board, you won't get any calls from worse hands (than two pair) if you bet. Of course if you check, there's a very slight chance he'll bluff at it, but usually this won't happen. So what else might be gained by checking? He might bet his straight if he made it, in which case you can raise. Of course if he missed his straight, he won't bet anyway. Now if you bet, you might get him to raise you if he did make the straight, but I'd assign this a fairly small chance of happening, as he'll often be afraid of your full house. Few would fold the straight here, not heads up. there's also a chance he might have accidentally made a better two pair than you, and might call with that. Overall, I like betting more than checking, as you can't collect any bets by checking if he checks behind you, and that's too likely to happen. The only exception would be if he likes to bluff.

[**MR.MANHATTAN**]

i bet........gee what happened???let me go see......hope u won