FPS or well played?

[CardSharpCook]

Deorum, you seem to have your mind made up about this. I don't know why you are defending your play, you posted it because you thought it was poorly played, right?

Two things: Your own analysis seems results oriented. Also, no matter how good you think this other player is, he doesn't have a perfect read on you. He is not so tight to fold any over pair at the first sign of aggression.

Your river bet, given your earlier decisions, really is atrocious. Think about it this way: if he has an overpair, why would he bet? You've displayed behavior that hints at a draw or a monster. If you have a draw, you're not calling a river bet and if you have a monster, he's setting himself up for a chk/rz. That you have a beatable hand AND WOULD CALL A RIVER BET is very unlikely given your play on earlier streets.

Again though, getting great pot odds, it is not the worst play in the world to call a river bet with any pair or even ace high given the flush draw on the board and your play of the hand.

As I see it, for this pro, betting the river would be terrible and calling the river would be acceptable (maybe even pot odds justified) with almost all possible holdings.

[surfdoc]

[ QUOTE ]
Deorum, you seem to have your mind made up about this. I don't know why you are defending your play, you posted it because you thought it was poorly played, right?

Two things: Your own analysis seems results oriented. Also, no matter how good you think this other player is, he doesn't have a perfect read on you. He is not so tight to fold any over pair at the first sign of aggression.

Your river bet, given your earlier decisions, really is atrocious. Think about it this way: if he has an overpair, why would he bet? You've displayed behavior that hints at a draw or a monster. If you have a draw, you're not calling a river bet and if you have a monster, he's setting himself up for a chk/rz. That you have a beatable hand AND WOULD CALL A RIVER BET is very unlikely given your play on earlier streets.

Again though, getting great pot odds, it is not the worst play in the world to call a river bet with any pair or even ace high given the flush draw on the board and your play of the hand.

As I see it, for this pro, betting the river would be terrible and calling the river would be acceptable (maybe even pot odds justified) with almost all possible holdings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. Although I think you meant to say "your lack of river bet."

[Deorum]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know why you are defending your play

[/ QUOTE ]

I am defending it because I think that I make some good
arguments against the points that were made, and I am not
yet convinced that I misplayed it.

[ QUOTE ]
you posted it because you thought it was poorly played, right?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I posted it because I thought it was an interresting
hand, and that I made some interresting decisions that would
provoke some thought. It is not that I thought that I
played it poorly, but more that I was uncertain as to
whether or not I played it well or badly.

[ QUOTE ]
Your own analysis seems results oriented.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought the same thing of most of the replies I got, as
they were mainly geared towards my opponent having AK,
especially on the river.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, no matter how good you think this other player is, he doesn't have a perfect read on you. He is not so tight to fold any over pair at the first sign of aggression.


[/ QUOTE ]

I did not mean that he would definately fold an overpair to
a turn checkraise. I just said it was possible. But let us
assume, for the moment, that he does have an overpair. I
probably get the same amount out of him, and possibly more,
through the line I chose, right? (one bet on the turn, two
bets on the river, as opposed to two bets on the turn and
one on the river. Also note that had he raised the turn,
I would have called and bet the river, for the same 3 bets)

[ QUOTE ]
Your river bet, given your earlier decisions, really is atrocious. Think about it this way: if he has an overpair, why would he bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

He would bet for value. My river check should tell him that
I do not have an 8. This should be obvious, as everyone
else so far has said that they would bet one.

[ QUOTE ]
That you have a beatable hand AND WOULD CALL A RIVER BET is very unlikely given your play on earlier streets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Most people bet the river when they think that they are
ahead, regardless of what the previous action would
indicate. As I have mentioned, checking the river says that
I cannot beat a pair bigger than sevens. A lot of people
would see this and bet anything that could beat sevens.
I really do not see him checking one of these hands behind.

[pfkaok]

[ QUOTE ]
He may bet AK here hoping I
will fold a busted flush draw that picked up a small pair,

[/ QUOTE ]

On a paired, drawy board, assuming that he will bet his unimproved AK on the river instead of showing down is pretty poor logic IMO. also, having this type of board with the pair, and drawy nature, will make him much more likely than normal to call a river bet with AK. The way you played that hand, i would certainly like my chances enough compared to pot size to call a bet on the river if I were him.

Also, people will be less results oriented if you don't include results in the initial post. Even if you didn't say that though, when he just calls your bet on the turn you have to assume that 2 big cards are now far more likely for him than a big pair. You said initially that he raises with a somewhat wide range of hands, so already you have to assume big cards are more likely than big pairs... then after the flat call it makes it even more likely that its just big cards. I agree with the others that overcards would likely bet this turn after raising flop if you check to him. I would at least say that AK will be much more likely to bet the turn than to bet river. I think turn CR would be good here, but turn bet isn't awful, as he'll likely raise you with an overpair.

Plus, with the Q coming on the river, it might even scare him into checking behind with a medium pair 77, 99-JJ.

[Deorum]

[ QUOTE ]
On a paired, drawy board, assuming that he will bet his unimproved AK on the river instead of showing down is pretty poor logic IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true. I was not adding it as a compelling reason
to check the river, just a little added support. The major
reason I checked the river was my hope that he would bet an
overpair, or a queen, combined with the fact that I thought
it would be unlikely to call a bet with ace high.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, people will be less results oriented if you don't include results in the initial post.

[/ QUOTE ]

Point well taken.

[ QUOTE ]
when he just calls your bet on the turn you have to assume that 2 big cards are now far more likely for him than a big pair. You said initially that he raises with a somewhat wide range of hands, so already you have to assume big cards are more likely than big pairs... then after the flat call it makes it even more likely that its just big cards

[/ QUOTE ]

This is another great point and an excellent reason to bet
the river. I now realize that my checkraise would have
worked far less often than a bet would have, so I now
understand why it is probably better to bet here.

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with the others that overcards would likely bet this turn after raising flop if you check to him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still disagree with this, but for the moment let us assume
that it is true. This brings us to this:

[ QUOTE ]
I think turn CR would be good here

[/ QUOTE ]

This is where I still have a problem. My checkraise will
not be called by overcards, and because of this,
check-calling here has to be better than
checkraising. Since I think that he will call a bet more
often than he will bet here with overcards, and he will not
call a raise with overcards, betting here must be
better than check-calling. Since betting is better than
check-calling, and check-calling is better than checkraising
I must conclude that betting is the best option. This
should be enough of an argument, but we can still add that
I may get raised here by an overpair, which even further
supports betting.

I think most of the people who suggested checkraising the
turn simply saw that I easily had a better hand than my
opponent, and suggested attempting to checkraise here for
that sole reason, as opposed to thinking about what a
checkraise would actually accomplish. This statement is not
supposed to be insulting, we all do this from time to time
(for instance, I now clearly see that betting the river is
far superior to attempting a checkraise). It is simply the
best explanation that I can see as to why someone would
suggest checkraising the turn as opposed to betting.

Anyway, good post, it really helped me understand this hand
a lot better.