Bottom set from blind fills on river...your move - Page 2

swolfe · #11 10-23-2005, 12:54 PM

QJ seems likely from the betting. i think i'd block the river...i want to get value from everything that would call a bet, but would check behind if i checked. the only problem with a blocker is if you think he'd raise the river with just a naked J...but it seems unlikely that he'd raise the turn with one.

swolfe · #12 10-23-2005, 12:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Call.

[/ QUOTE ]
yep. if i check the river, i'm calling the bet.

soah · #13 10-23-2005, 01:10 PM

Ugly situation. The raise on the turn from this type of player could easily be the "pre-emptive blocking bet in position" with top pair, hoping to get a free showdown on most rivers. But it could also be from hands which beat you on the river... as in, most of the hands which will bet if you check to them. Maybe I'm just giving the guy too much credit. But if your opponent is thinking at all along those lines, going for a river checkraise would be a disaster. He shows down his losers for free and takes your stack with better boats. I think I'd prefer leading the river. Any hand he was planning to bet with is not going to fold when you lead into him.

DrPublo · #14 10-23-2005, 01:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Ugly situation. The raise on the turn from this type of player could easily be the "pre-emptive blocking bet in position" with top pair, hoping to get a free showdown on most rivers. But it could also be from hands which beat you on the river... as in, most of the hands which will bet if you check to them. Maybe I'm just giving the guy too much credit. But if your opponent is thinking at all along those lines, going for a river checkraise would be a disaster. He shows down his losers for free and takes your stack with better boats. I think I'd prefer leading the river. Any hand he was planning to bet with is not going to fold when you lead into him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point, but are you sure he never bets a worse hand on the river when I check to him?

The Doc

soah · #15 10-23-2005, 02:40 PM

But wouldn't he also call a bet on the end with those hands? It's not like there are potential bluffing hands he could have.

And what range of hands do you expect him to call a river checkraise with in a pot of this size? Your hand is hardly better than AA at this point... you wouldn't checkraise the river with AA, would you?

Staycool · #16 10-23-2005, 02:49 PM

Based on this action, button limp and the turn reraise, I think QJ is villain's most likely holding. 77 is possible, as is badly played 67s. So the river may have made you a second best hand. (In response to some other posters, IMO you will see QQ and JJ less than 1% of the time.) Do you really think turn bet lets him off his 2pair type hands? If so, just call. I probably check-call the river overbet, without a read one way or the other.

DrPublo · #17 10-23-2005, 02:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Your hand is hardly better than AA at this point... you wouldn't checkraise the river with AA, would you?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a ridiculous statement.

The Doc

DrPublo · #18 10-23-2005, 02:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Do you really think turn bet lets him off his 2pair type hands?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a turn bet/3-bet lets him muck 67 or Q6 or Q7. Remember, this is an unraised pot and 200nl players love to limp with absolute garbage.

The Doc

TheWorstPlayer · #19 10-23-2005, 02:58 PM

He's not folding any hand he min-raises here. Even if it is just top pair. Just 3-bet the turn and try to get all-in on the river.

soah · #20 10-23-2005, 03:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your hand is hardly better than AA at this point... you wouldn't checkraise the river with AA, would you?

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a ridiculous statement.

The Doc

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it ridiculous because you would checkraise the river with AA, because that's such a stupid idea that I shouldn't even put it in print, or because there is a big difference in strength between AA and 66 on that board?