5/10 4 flush on the riva: A good time for a bet-fold?

[paperboyNC]

UTG is 38/7/0.92 after 40 hands.

Absolute 5/10 Hold'em (9 max, 8 handed)

Pre-flop: Hero is BB with 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
<font color="red">UTG raises</font>, <font color="gray">6 folds</font>, Hero calls.

Flop: (4.6 SB) 2[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 8[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (2 players)
Hero checks. <font color="red">UTG bets</font>, <font color="red">Hero raises</font>. UTG calls.

Turn: (4.3 BB) A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (2 players)
<font color="red">Hero bets</font>. UTG calls.

River: (6.3 BB) J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (2 players)
Hero?


I never bet-fold on the river. Is this a good spot for it? Or should I check/call or bet/call?

Please don't tell me to fold pre-flop.

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]



I never bet-fold on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

You should.

[ QUOTE ]
Is this a good spot for it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.


I don't like the flop/turn line against this type of opponent. An opponent like this is very rarely going to fold to that kind of aggression (check his WTSD... I imagine it's quite high). I think you should just check-call both streets. Putting in more than 1.5 BB on the first two streets unimproved is usually spewing in my opinion, as we just can't ever generate enough fold equity to make it worth it.

[tetonpete]

bet...you can safely fold to a raise. i seem to remember reading a theorem on here a while back stated that if you are heads up and the first to act, and a four flush card appears on the board, you should always bet regardless of your hand. (I might be misquoting this somewhat, but it surely applies here.)

you want a call from another ace, pocket pair or smaller flush, and you have a small chance of folding a bigger flush.

[paperboyNC]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like the flop/turn line against this type of opponent. An opponent like this is very rarely going to fold to that kind of aggression (check his WTSD... I imagine it's quite high). I think you should just check-call both streets.

[/ QUOTE ]

You dont think he ever folds AKo on the turn if he's unimproved? You are right that his WTSD is high at 45%.

Against two non-heart overcards, I am 62% to win. Do you think he has an overpair often enough to make the check-raise -EV?

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't like the flop/turn line against this type of opponent. An opponent like this is very rarely going to fold to that kind of aggression (check his WTSD... I imagine it's quite high). I think you should just check-call both streets.

[/ QUOTE ]

You dont think he ever folds AKo on the turn if he's unimproved? You are right that his WTSD is high at 45%.

Against two non-heart overcards, I am 62% to win. Do you think he has an overpair often enough to make the check-raise -EV?

[/ QUOTE ]

You make an interesting point, and I guess I can see the argument in wanting to check-raise for value here. The main reason I don't like it is getting raised on the turn sucks...

You note that you are 62% against a non-pair overcard hand. There are times villain will have a pair though, and so this number will dip into the 50s and so any equity edge you have on the flop is very slim at best.

So, basically, the upside to your line really lies primarily in getting villain to make an incorrect fold on the turn. Any slight value edge you have on the flop is mitigated by the expensive nature of your line the times you are behind (you lose a lot more by taking this line when behind than you gain when ahead). So, in situations were you do not have a good chance of getting villain to make an incorrect fold on the turn, your line is probably only increasing variance while really not increasing expectation.

Personally, I don't think a 45% WTSD type is ever folding a big A unimproved on this turn. In fact, not folding that type of hand is precisely why their WTSD is so high. Since you're not getting a fold from that type of hand, I prefer simply playing this more straightforwardly.

[eleventy]

Does anyone like to check/call to induce a bluff from Ax hoping x isn't a heart? That's my line here alot, how bad is it?

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone like to check/call to induce a bluff from Ax hoping x isn't a heart? That's my line here alot, how bad is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, a hand with an A in it is usually going to check the river behind, particularly as this opponent is passive. Few opponents would bet for value here or try to fold small [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]s.

In general, all that checking does is allow an opponent without a [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] to see a free showdown while allowing opponents with [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]s to make correct value bets against you. By showing weakness, even small hearts that have you beat will often correctly value bet.

The point is that checking allows your opponent to play close to perfectly.

[paperboyNC]

River: (6.3 BB) J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (2 players)
<font color="red">Hero bets</font>. <font color="red">UTG raises</font>. Hero calls.

Final Pot: 10.3 BB

UTG shows A[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], two pair Aces and Jacks
Hero shows 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], flush Ace High.

Outcome: Hero wins 10 BB



Hands like this make me hate the bet/fold. I think I'm good here more than the 11% of the time I need to make this call.

[paperboyNC]

[ QUOTE ]

So, basically, the upside to your line really lies primarily in getting villain to make an incorrect fold on the turn. Any slight value edge you have on the flop is mitigated by the expensive nature of your line the times you are behind (you lose a lot more by taking this line when behind than you gain when ahead). So, in situations were you do not have a good chance of getting villain to make an incorrect fold on the turn, your line is probably only increasing variance while really not increasing expectation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I almost always check-raise flush draws heads up, partially for deception. This way opponents are more likely to call me down the times I have top pair, two pair or a set. Plus, this way my flush draws will win about 50% of the time (the times I hit plus the times my opponent folds), rather than only the 36% of the time I hit.

I could be wrong to be so aggressive heads-up on a draw.

[eleventy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone like to check/call to induce a bluff from Ax hoping x isn't a heart? That's my line here alot, how bad is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, a hand with an A in it is usually going to check the river behind, particularly as this opponent is passive. Few opponents would bet for value here or try to fold small [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]s.

In general, all that checking does is allow an opponent without a [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] to see a free showdown while allowing opponents with [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]s to make correct value bets against you. By showing weakness, even small hearts that have you beat will often correctly value bet.

The point is that checking allows your opponent to play close to perfectly.

[/ QUOTE ]



OK. But is a bet going to get a bigger [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] to fold here ever? If they called A8 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] they aren't folding now. I think(If anyone can point me to numbers showing I'm wrong/right I'd appreciate it) you are more likely to get a nonheart hand to bluff if you show weakness. I, like the original poster, have trouble with the bet/fold line. I assume inducing bluff is better than bet/calling. I'm sure this is a leak of mine, looking for help.