Post Flop - river call?

[jd2b2006]

[ QUOTE ]
jd2b2006,

I don't think folding is bad here. But try and go through a thought process. What range of hands would you put villain on? Then think about how villain would play this hand based on each of those hands.

Scuba

[/ QUOTE ]

Scuba,

As I said before, with the checks on the flop and turn, villain could have any two cards. Here are some likely hands:

1) any ace: might be slowplaying since he is small stacked; will bet the river no matter what

2) any ten: no reason to bet the turn after hitting trips; will bet river since he most likely has best hand

3) pocket pair between 10s-Ks: likley to bet flop or turn; this hand is likely not to be what villain is holding

4) pocket pair less than 10s: no reason to bet until river

5) K-x: will check all the way through and bet river to bluff since you have shown no strength

6) spade flush draw: should bet at least the turn, if not flop; since this did not happen, not a likely holding

I understand you see the overbet and think bluff, but you need to correct here around 60% for the call to be +EV. Basically, you can only beat a bluff, or split the pot if villain has a K. I personally like to overbet in a situation like this where it looks like a bluff when I have a strong hand, to induce a K-x to call. I also understand that since villain has not bet, it appears they do not have a strong hand. I still stand by my line of betting the river if I want this pot, and folding to an overbet since we have no information. If villain got to be a short stack by donking away his chips, it would strongly influence my decision on calling.

[microbet]

I agree with gump. A split is fairly likely and a loss is more likely than a win. There is almost nothing in the pot besides his bet.

[pokerlaw]

unless he has an A or a 10, I am fit to tie him. The chance he has either is roughly 1/6. Given his betting up until the river, I don't think he has either. If he had a 10, wouldn't he have bet after you checked the flop? Maybe he has an ace? but with that flush draw, a bet is likely from most players.

However, he does have a small stack, and he might be slowplaying. This bet size is a bit atypical - most players would value-bet something like t50 here with a boat I feel. If I win this pot, my stack is t940 and I am a middle-high stack. If I lose, I am at t620, but there are still stacks of t540, t390, t470 and villan w t525. I call.

Edit: He might have JJ-KK of course, but I expect a bet from them w the ace showing or more likely a Miniraise PF.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
The chance he has either is roughly 1/6.

[/ QUOTE ]

?????

Where is this figure coming from?

[pokerlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The chance he has either is roughly 1/6.

[/ QUOTE ]

?????

Where is this figure coming from?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are 4 aces or tens left. we know 5 of the cards, so the chance he is holding an A OR a 10 = 4/47 + 4/46. This is about 8/48 or 1/6.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

There are 4 aces or tens left. we know 5 of the cards, so the chance he is holding an A OR a 10 = 4/47 + 4/46. This is about 8/48 or 1/6.

[/ QUOTE ]

From nitpick to quasi-nitpick to not really nitpick at all:

1) We know 7 cards, not 5, since we can also see the two in our hand.

2) Suppose there are 3 unseen cards (A,B,C), you have two random cards, and I want to know if you have A. The chance of this is 2/3 - you have either (A,B), (A,C), or (B,C). Your method tells me that it is 1/3 + 1/2 = 5/6. There are a couple of ways you could get at the probability: 1 - 41 choose 2 / 45 choose 2, the number of ways of pulling two cards that aren't an A or T from the 45 remaining cards divided by the total number of ways of pulling two cards, is one way. Alternatively, say there is a 41 / 45 chance that he has one card that is neither A nor T, and then a 40 / 44 chance that he has another , multiply these and subtract from one. This is the same thing. Your method will work approximately in cases where things are unlikely, but I see people use it pretty frequently around here and I like to make sure that they realize that it's not really correct.

3) This probability calculation only makes sense if we allow that our opponent has two random cards. But, I think to assume that our opponent has two random cards at the end here is not right. Consider a hypothetical opponent who will only bet with an A or T here. The probability following a bet by him that he holds an A or T is 100%, not ~ 1/6.

Now, I'm not saying that our opponents are only going to bet on the end with an A or T, but they are substantially more likely to bet on the end with an A or T than with just about anything else. Consequently, they are substantially more likely than random chance would suggest to be holding one. When people mention Bayes's Theorem, this is the kind of thing they are getting at.

[GrekeHaus]

[ QUOTE ]
What I'm saying is that I think most of the time you're up against at least another K.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this. Someone with a K is going to win this pot a large ammount of the time, so why would he risk putting a huge bet out therefor a hand that's only going to get called if he's behind?

He's either been slow playing a monster or is on an outright bluff here. I don't think you call and chop here very often.

[wuwei]

If we ignore the tie scenario for now, you need to be good over 40% of the time for calling to be profitable.

Range of hands? For a 30% winning player, I imagine his range of hands open limping is something like any A, pocket pairs smaller than TT, any two broadway, and some suited junk. If you had an idea of the % of hands he was playing thus far, I could come up with a better range.

4 cards in that range are left in the deck that can beat you. JJ-KK seems unlikely. Checking through one of those 4 cards on the flop and the turn seems poor, but who knows... this guy isn't exactly ripping up Party SNGs.

So now he overbets this small pot - did he play like [censored] and take a stab with nothing or did he play like [censored] and run himself into a monster? I don't know, but I rarely pay off to find out in a pot this small. It is tempting, though.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this. Someone with a K is going to win this pot a large ammount of the time, so why would he risk putting a huge bet out therefor a hand that's only going to get called if he's behind?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I suspect that the average player's thought process isn't this sophisticated, and instead is more like "Hey, this other guy pretty clearly doesn't have an A or a T, and I have a K, therefore I win. Time to bet." Or are the 33s at Party peopled with strong players, on average? I see what people are saying, and I'll agree that this looks fishy, but why wait until the river to bluff instead of the turn?

[11t]

Very curious hand. I would like to know how he lost 1/2 of his stack. Typically when people lose their stack so early it is from poor bluffs or some hand they couldn't get off of. I'd call here as much for value but also out of curiosity/for information. If he has me beat I'd like to see what hand he played in such a fashion.

To put him on a range though I'd need more information because ppl who limp with 11xbb typically aren't very good. Unless he rivered quads of course.