River action

Bozzer

5/10 NL cash game, 8 handed

Villain in the hand is fairly new to the table.
Seemed kinda tight.
Only worthwhile hand I played since villain sat down was
a limp-reraise utg with 76s which I got to show down.

I’m dealt AhKh on button

2 limpers,I (1600) raise to 60, sb calls and so do limpers

Flop: Jc 5d 2h (250)

checked to me, I bet 200.sb calls

I don’t usually bet here but pot was fairly big and board
was very dry.
sb has 800 left

Turn: 9d (650)

chk,chk

River: Ac (650)

Villain checks, I ??

Lafortezza

I think I'd value bet this, $250/$300 or something. And I'd probably call a raise too.

Hectorjelly

to be short - if hes good check, if hes bad bet. Since this is an unknown at 5 10 I would check, but I havent played 5 10 in 6 months so maybe this is wrong.

NickyOD

$150 looks good.

The Troll

I'd bet half the pot. I don't think he'd check any big hand on the turn and river.

Hectorjelly

What is a bet here supposed to achieve against a reasnable player? He will fold hands that lose to AK, and raise with hands that beat AK. If you call a raise you will lose, no one will bluff in that spot and no one is going to be value check raising a worse hand. This is a clear spot where betting has a negative expectation except against a moron or if you have such a loose image that 88 will call here.

NickyOD

Hectorjelly wrote:

What is a bet here supposed to achieve against a reasnable player? He will fold hands that lose to AK,

He is new to the table, There isn't enough info about this player to suggest he any credibility. We've just limp raised with 67s UTG so the range of hands he is going to call us with is now wider. I think even an average 5/10 player will still call here with a KJ/QJ or a weaker ace and bet with a hand that beats AK. I think its very unusual for someone to check with a better hand out of position here. He's more likely to value bet. While I don't think checking behind is wrong I think you will still be ahead here often enough to make value betting the river the right play.

Bozzer

With the action up to the river I put sb on Jx or some such.
I didn’t think he’d check flop,turn and river with a hand that beats mine. I figured there was a slight chance he calls with a J here.
So I decided to bet, but how much?

Any amount from 300-500 is a pretty bad choice.
Hands your beating will just call(you’ve probably lost some value) and villain will generally only raise with a hand that beats yours, but it can be tough to lay down getting around 4.5:1 for example.

So I had to decide between a small milking bet or a push (there was no point in betting say 600 as if villain calls this much then he calls a push,so you lose value).

I figured that I hadn’t been aggro/bluffish enough for villain to look a push up often enough with a J.

So I opted for 200. Villain might have a hard time folding a J here getting 4.25:1 and I would be comfortable folding
to a check-raise(I thought he would be too tight to try a bluff raise in this spot).

Quick head math shows that if he calls $200 50% of time and calls a push 10% of time than the smaller bet is better.

Anyway I bet the 200,villain check-raised all-in and I folded.
Villain was kind/stupid enough to flash 55.

I don't think that a bet here had negative expectation.
Say I guesstimate that he has a bigger hand than mine 10% of the time here.
Then I only need a greater than 10% chance that villain calls my $200 bet.
(This assumes he only check-raises me with a better hand).

I think these are reasonable assumptions for a relative unknown here.

Hectorjelly

NickyOD wrote:

He is new to the table, There isn't enough info about this player to suggest he any credibility. We've just limp raised with 67s UTG so the range of hands he is going to call us with is now wider. I think even an average 5/10 player will still call here with a KJ/QJ or a weaker ace

I missed the 67s so maybe a bet is in order and hope he calls thinking you might be bluffing, but you have to realise that under normal circumstances you have leaked so much information during this hand that your opponent can play perfectly on the river. If your opponenet knows what you hold on the river is there any point in betting even if you are 95% sure you are ahead?

NickyOD wrote:

and bet with a hand that beats AK. I think its very unusual for someone to check with a better hand out of position here. He's more likely to value bet. While I don't think checking behind is wrong I think you will still be ahead here often enough to make value betting the river the right play.

Well as above I would be surprised if AK was not good here (allthough the fact that it was posted probably means it wasnt), but he would of folded weaker aces on the flop (bar ones that are 2 pair), and checking on the river when the ace drops is pretty standard play with a monster.

Hectorjelly

I have to head out now but I think this is a great thread and an interesing hand. I like your thinking, but I think your assumptions may be a little off.

Lafortezza

Isn't it odd for the villain holding 55 here not to bet the river?
Bozzer made a (continuation) bet on the flop and checked behind on the turn.

If villain bets the A falling on the river, he gets called by pretty much an Ax, possibly raised by a big fat AK/AQ or two pair like AJ/A9/A2.
Any other non Ace hands will check behind anyway on that river, so villains best option is to value bet and hope for a call or raise.

Check-raising the river will only get called by very few hands, some of which have Villain beat.

Ste05

Yes very interesting hand, myself personally would have checked this river, as far as I was concerned his call on the flop indicated alot more than TP good kicker, as you say it is a pretty boring flop, I'm sure he would have re-raised with a bare J, and normally the only hands that will only call here are TPTK, two pair or trips, none of which you you can beat now.

It looks like he is trapping and hoping to let you do the betting for him on the subsequent streets, the only way he was getting paid really here was to let you do the betting, if he called the flop with the intention of stealing the pot away from you on a later street he would have bet on the turn or river, because he doesn't bet I prefer to just check and hope my bare TP will be enough to win what's in the pot now.

TBH, I think that any bet on the river here will be check-raised regardless of what he has, and unless you have JJ or AA you couldn't have called. Meaning that it would have been a +EV move by him regardless

careca

Although I would probably have checked the river, I would never have suspected a set here. His check on the river would really have put me off. Is this a profitable play in the long run ? I also would have put him on KJ, QJ but the possibility of AJ would have made me check it.

The Troll

lafortezza wrote:

Isn't it odd for the villain holding 55 here not to bet the river?
Bozzer made a (continuation) bet on the flop and checked behind on the turn.

If villain bets the A falling on the river, he gets called by pretty much an Ax, possibly raised by a big fat AK/AQ or two pair like AJ/A9/A2.
Any other non Ace hands will check behind anyway on that river, so villains best option is to value bet and hope for a call or raise.

Check-raising the river will only get called by very few hands, some of which have Villain beat.

I find it hard to believe that the villain didn't lead out on the river. It's shockingly bad play. perhaps if he'd been at the table a while and thought that someone might push on the river to buy the pot then a check here would be ok. Otherwise IMHO it's awful.

Bozzer

lafortezza wrote:

Isn't it odd for the villain holding 55 here not to bet the river?
Bozzer made a (continuation) bet on the flop and checked behind on the turn.

If villain bets the A falling on the river, he gets called by pretty much an Ax, possibly raised by a big fat AK/AQ or two pair like AJ/A9/A2.
Any other non Ace hands will check behind anyway on that river, so villains best option is to value bet and hope for a call or raise.

Check-raising the river will only get called by very few hands, some of which have Villain beat.

It's actually not that odd. He gives me a chance to represent the ace if
I was bluffing earlier.
If he pushes the river when the ace hits I would have been very suspicious
as that card was likely to help me and villain knows this. This is why I would fold here.
But if he checks he gives me a chance to pot commit myself with an ace(which quite a few ppl will do) or even push with one.
He only loses value if I bet v.small and fold to a check-raise as I did in this hand, whereas I would have called a bigger bet from him had he lead.

Villain can ignore the situation where he's behind and concentrate on maximising against bluffs and Ax hands.

Bozzer

Ste05 wrote:

Yes very interesting hand, myself personally would have checked this river, as far as I was concerned his call on the flop indicated alot more than TP good kicker, as you say it is a pretty boring flop, I'm sure he would have re-raised with a bare J, and normally the only hands that will only call here are TPTK, two pair or trips, none of which you you can beat now.

It looks like he is trapping and hoping to let you do the betting for him on the subsequent streets, the only way he was getting paid really here was to let you do the betting, if he called the flop with the intention of stealing the pot away from you on a later street he would have bet on the turn or river, because he doesn't bet I prefer to just check and hope my bare TP will be enough to win what's in the pot now.

TBH, I think that any bet on the river here will be check-raised regardless of what he has, and unless you have JJ or AA you couldn't have called. Meaning that it would have been a +EV move by him regardless

I see what you're saying about his river check-raise but you have to remember that most villains aren't gonna try and take me off AJ/AK here
as they feel they will be looked up by these hands too often.

If I knew villain was a v.good player then I would happily check behind but against a tightish unknown I think you might be leaving money on the table.

Ste05

Bozzer wrote:

If I knew villain was a v.good player then I would happily check behind but against a tightish unknown I think you might be leaving money on the table.

There's a possibility of this all right, but the fact that he's a tight unknown would also make me be more inclined to check, I really just can't see any hand that will call this flop and check twice that you're still beating, why would he call and not try to bet into you (at least for info. purposes) without a very solid made hand, there was nothing that he could be hoping to draw to, and without more info on the Villian I just think by betting here you're maximising your potential losses and not potential winnings......

Bozzer

Ste05 wrote:

There's a possibility of this all right, but the fact that he's a tight unknown would also make me be more inclined to check, I really just can't see any hand that will call this flop and check twice that you're still beating, why would he call and not try to bet into you (at least for info. purposes) without a very solid made hand, there was nothing that he could be hoping to draw to, and without more info on the Villian I just think by betting here you're maximising your potential losses and not potential winnings......

KJ/QJ/J10/10's/8's are hands which villain could play like this. If he leads
turn or river with these holdings then it is not a value bet. He's also not v.likely to get me to lay down a worse hand on the turn (he would on the river but he doesn't know that).

I think your overestimating how often villain is ahead on river. I think the
decision was close but I chose to bet because

a) he'd seen me limp-reraise 67s
b) I didn't think he had a bluff raise in him
c) I didn't think he would play a set like this (on flop & turn mainly)

Ste05

Bozzer wrote:

KJ/QJ/J10/10's/8's are hands which villain could play like this. If he leads
turn or river with these holdings then it is not a value bet. He's also not v.likely to get me to lay down a worse hand on the turn (he would on the river but he doesn't know that).

I think your overestimating how often villain is ahead on river. I think the
decision was close but I chose to bet because

a) he'd seen me limp-reraise 67s
b) I didn't think he had a bluff raise in him
c) I didn't think he would play a set like this (on flop & turn mainly)

I take your points and TBH, I think this guy played the hand well, but I can't see a standard tight player playing any of these hands bar a pocket pair OOP after your serious raise (even though it was from the button) and then merely calling this flop bet with a weak top pair, and seeing as we have no reads on the player as to how passive etc. he may or may not be, we have to assume he is a decent tight player, and no decent tight player that I know will call $50 OOP with KJ, J10, JQ, etc. etc., the only hands you can really put him on to only call this flop bet, still has your pair of A's beaten by the river I think, all this added to the fact that he knows we're capable of putting money into the pot with marginal hands, and may possibly be faced with further betting on the turn and river, still doesn't put him off calling and playing the hand OOP,

I'm possibly giving this guy too much credit, but at 5-10, I doubt there's many donkeys.... I'd have been very careful after this flop call, and would gladly take this free check on the river.... but that's just me, I am possibly not maximising my potential winnings but I just don't see any value in betting here,

Bozzer

Ste05 wrote:

I take your points and TBH, I think this guy played the hand well, but I can't see a standard tight player playing any of these hands bar a pocket pair OOP after your serious raise (even though it was from the button) and then merely calling this flop bet with a weak top pair, and seeing as we have no reads on the player as to how passive etc. he may or may not be, we have to assume he is a decent tight player, and no decent tight player that I know will call $50 OOP with KJ, J10, JQ, etc. etc., the only hands you can really put him on to only call this flop bet, still has your pair of A's beaten by the river I think, all this added to the fact that he knows we're capable of putting money into the pot with marginal hands, and may possibly be faced with further betting on the turn and river, still doesn't put him off calling and playing the hand OOP,

I'm possibly giving this guy too much credit, but at 5-10, I doubt there's many donkeys.... I'd have been very careful after this flop call, and would gladly take this free check on the river.... but that's just me, I am possibly not maximising my potential winnings but I just don't see any value in betting here,

Good anaysis ste. You'd be surprised that there's still a few donks about.
Quite often players don't give due consideration to there position for future rounds when calling preflop. I felt like he would have called with the Jx hands listed if they were suited. Offsuit probably not. The two original limpers were fairly passive and likely to call once he called my raise,so he could factor that into his implied odds.
I say villain was tightish but I really didn't have a lot of information to go on.
It was more of a hesistant read.

Again, I think the decision to bet or check was a close one and the fact that
he wasn't as likely to call with Jx offsuit preflop might have swayed it to a check.

Ste05

Bozzer wrote:

I felt like he would have called with the Jx hands listed if they were suited. Offsuit probably not. The two original limpers were fairly passive and likely to call once he called my raise,so he could factor that into his implied odds.

I think this is the most important factor then really, if there's a chance he might have called with these then the small bet as you did was probably a good move, I like to go with my gut too in spots like these, because he might have played it hoping the call would kill the subsequent betting and might get a show down....