5/10 Hand (Boring Title; Interesting Hand)

[cero_z]

Hi bruiser,

[ QUOTE ]
if he gets raised on the river he must have the best hand, no one c/r 3 times ina row iwth a good hand. if he gets called and losses so what, that own't happen, he'll get called on the river and win.


[/ QUOTE ]

Villain didn't check-raise the flop, so it's not a triple. He could very easily get called and lose, since a small set would have to give Hero very little credit to value bet the river. Villain has clearly represented at least 2 pair. And, 2 pair won't call a value bet here, unless it's very small (<$150). So I agree that he's ahead a lot of the time, but he's definitely not a favorite when called, and obviously nothing better will fold to a moderate bet.

[Cornell Fiji]

[ QUOTE ]
Hero very little credit to value bet the river. Villain has clearly represented at least 2 pair. And, 2 pair won't call a value bet here, unless it's very small (<$150). So I agree that he's ahead a lot of the time, but he's definitely not a favorite when called, and obviously nothing better will fold to a moderate bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would two pair only call a small value bet on the river? You are saying conflicting things, you (along with many other replies to this thread) keep saying that the villain will put the hero on a busted flush draw. But then you say that he will fold two pair (eventhough the hero most likely has a busted draw) unless the value bet is strong. In addition, the argument is being made that the villain would check raise the river (why bluff a hand he can beat?) if the hero bets. I am definitely in the minority with how I would play this hand so one of the *experts* please explain these apparent incongruencies of thought.

-Steve

-Steve

[turnipmonster]

I feel like a value bet in this case would be pretty thin, but I think there is perhaps a case for it. if villian flopped a straight it is natural for him to lead the river, he has the effective nuts and hero clearly has enough of a hand to call a reasonable bet (since he called the turn). so while we can't rule out a straight I feel it is more unlikely.

villian's check feels like a combination of inducing a bluff and a "ok, I give up, wtf do you have?" small two pair check. he could make this check with a set, but he could also make it with two small pair and that hand is more likely from a raw card combinations perspective.

I think checking is ok, but if opponent is somewhat straightforward I think there's a strong case for a small value bet here.

--turnipmonster

[ML4L]

Hey all,

Thanks for the replies. Here are some of my thoughts:

Preflop: Straightforward. With a read on the limpers, a raise might be profitable, but limp is the default.

Flop: I thought that more people would advocate raising here. I personally like the call. My student thought that the bet into the field here marked at least top pair (I agree), so he was likely behind at this point. Thus, I don't like a raise, as it gives Villain an opportunity to blow Hero off a decent hand with outs that Hero is not committed to.

Turn: Bet here is obvious. So is the call of the check-raise; as many have pointed out, a reraise will blow worse hands out of the water and not fold out better hands.

River: This is the street that I think is the most interesting. It is clear that Villain has a strong hand here and has checked the river to try to induce a bet from a missed flush draw. As KKF pointed out, Villain knows that a straight/set for Hero are very unlikely given his line to this point. But, the thing that I think is so interesting is that Villain might be doing this with a worse hand than Hero's. Villain was the big blind, so we can't rule out hands like 85 and 84. The other key is the fact that Hero can safely fold to a check-raise here. Villain would have to be a lunatic to try to check-raise bluff rather than lead bluff if he had no hand. So, since we never have to worry about incorrectly folding to a check-raise and since, in my opinion, Villain is calling with any hand that he has here, the only thing to decide is whether Hero has the best hand more than 50% of the time here. I told the student that, if I were at the table, I would have checked behind. But, after giving it some thought, I started to think that a bet might be good here. And, I disagree that it should be a small bet; I would really try to sell the missed flush draw. If I were to bet, it would be almost full pot.

So, the question is, do people think that Villain will hold two smaller pair here often enough to make a bet correct? Would Villain check-raise the turn with those hands? Would Villain lead the flop with those hands? I really can't decide, which is why I posted the hand. If I weren't so busy/lazy, I'd do the math on his hand distribution here and have a pretty good answer...

It sounds like most people think that Villain will have a better hand more than half the time, thus making the check the correct play?

Anyway, I'd love to hear more opinions. I'll give the results tomorrow. Thanks again.

Mike

[KaneKungFu123]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel like a value bet in this case would be pretty thin, but I think there is perhaps a case for it. if villian flopped a straight it is natural for him to lead the river, he has the effective nuts and hero clearly has enough of a hand to call a reasonable bet (since he called the turn). so while we can't rule out a straight I feel it is more unlikely.

villian's check feels like a combination of inducing a bluff and a "ok, I give up, wtf do you have?" small two pair check. he could make this check with a set, but he could also make it with two small pair and that hand is more likely from a raw card combinations perspective.

I think checking is ok, but if opponent is somewhat straightforward I think there's a strong case for a small value bet here.

--turnipmonster

[/ QUOTE ]

u are the best NL poster on this site, consistently.

[thatpfunk]

[ QUOTE ]
And, I disagree that it should be a small bet; I would really try to sell the missed flush draw. If I were to bet, it would be almost full pot.


[/ QUOTE ]

Very, very interesting. You continuously make me think about hands differently, and I love it.

[1800GAMBLER]

A lot of people have said villian is obviously inducing a bluff from the missed flush draw here, but i don't know, if the villian is at that level of thought then it seems strange he'd risk a free card on the turn.

I guess i agree if no one in these games ever checks the turn with a flush draw here.

As for the river, while i agree he could be doing it with a worse hand i don't think you have a value bet.

Lets say we take case 1. In which villian would do this with all the 2 pairs and sets and the straight. Then it's probably close, and that's the best case for us.

Case 2. He's not a very good thinking player and he's just doing a 'fun' line with a set/straight only. I think players who get fancy are much more likely to do it with only a set rather than two pair.

Case 3. He's a somewhat decent thinking yet a player who thinks 45 bottom two pair is not a hand to get fancy with as he thinks it's strength in this situation is a lot worse than a set.

I think a lot of different player types match this play and we are only hitting value against one of them.

edit: although i do agree with turnipmonster with the '"ok, I give up, wtf do you have?" small two pair check.' comment, so this brings it very very close.

[Usagi_yo]

In this particular spot, you've entered the pot volountarily, the BB gets stuck with his hand and can realy have almost anything.

He leads the flop for a pot size bet, I'm figuring straight draw, flush draw or both, perhaps 77, 66. Perhaps just two big overcards.

Anyway, the check raise on the turn is weakish. Perhaps to trying to take the pot cause he hit a 10 or picked up more outs. I'm thinking perhaps 96, 97. He's perhaps thinking you have 8 with kicker, perhaps w/flush draw in which case he should know that raise isn't going to budge you on the turn.

The river check, I don't think is to induce a bet. I think he wants a showdown with a weak hand or a busted draw himself. 87, 86 type hand. He's really weak so I don't think a value bet here is going to work, and if your wrong, you can get played back at and never see the showdown. I check right along with him.

[KaneKungFu123]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey all,

Thanks for the replies. Here are some of my thoughts:

Preflop: Straightforward. With a read on the limpers, a raise might be profitable, but limp is the default.

Flop: I thought that more people would advocate raising here. I personally like the call. My student thought that the bet into the field here marked at least top pair (I agree), so he was likely behind at this point. Thus, I don't like a raise, as it gives Villain an opportunity to blow Hero off a decent hand with outs that Hero is not committed to.

Turn: Bet here is obvious. So is the call of the check-raise; as many have pointed out, a reraise will blow worse hands out of the water and not fold out better hands.

River: This is the street that I think is the most interesting. It is clear that Villain has a strong hand here and has checked the river to try to induce a bet from a missed flush draw. As KKF pointed out, Villain knows that a straight/set for Hero are very unlikely given his line to this point. But, the thing that I think is so interesting is that Villain might be doing this with a worse hand than Hero's. Villain was the big blind, so we can't rule out hands like 85 and 84. The other key is the fact that Hero can safely fold to a check-raise here. Villain would have to be a lunatic to try to check-raise bluff rather than lead bluff if he had no hand. So, since we never have to worry about incorrectly folding to a check-raise and since, in my opinion, Villain is calling with any hand that he has here, the only thing to decide is whether Hero has the best hand more than 50% of the time here. I told the student that, if I were at the table, I would have checked behind. But, after giving it some thought, I started to think that a bet might be good here. And, I disagree that it should be a small bet; I would really try to sell the missed flush draw. If I were to bet, it would be almost full pot.

So, the question is, do people think that Villain will hold two smaller pair here often enough to make a bet correct? Would Villain check-raise the turn with those hands? Would Villain lead the flop with those hands? I really can't decide, which is why I posted the hand. If I weren't so busy/lazy, I'd do the math on his hand distribution here and have a pretty good answer...

It sounds like most people think that Villain will have a better hand more than half the time, thus making the check the correct play?

Anyway, I'd love to hear more opinions. I'll give the results tomorrow. Thanks again.

Mike

[/ QUOTE ]

Very good post.

And looking back, that turn raise did seem too small to be either a straight or a set. If you are going for a turn check raise with either of those hands, I think you want to lock out your opponent. Id have made it closer to 275.

The most likely line is two pair trying to induce a bluff from a missed flush draw. How much to bet? Without any reads, I like about half the pot.

[Ulysses]

Bet the river and fold to a checkraise. How much to bet on the river depends on how much you bet on the river. I would probably bet $350-400.