Any way I could have got away from this...?

Ardent

Alright lads. This was a sickener...

Playing a .25/.50 cash game on PP last night and, two hands in, I get dealt KK on the small blind. I've got $25 and villian has slightly more.

Everyone limps and I raise it to $2.50. The BB (villian) and BB+1 call, everyone else folds. The flop comes 883 rainbow. I make $4 dollars to go. Villain calls, BB+1 folds.

Turn is a 9. I make it $8 to go. Villian calls.

River is another 8. I push with my remaining $10/11, putting him a lower pocket pair than mine and if he has aces then fair play to him....

Villain calls and turns over 78 off suit.

Is there any way I could have got off this hand or was it case of "just one of those hands"?

handsfree

no you were screwed! though you'd wonder what he was doing calling!!

Amaru

This is very easy to get away from. Although his call preflop was iffy, if he's called on 2 streets, you have to at least consider he has an 8. With this in mind, the push on the river is a mistake.

Ardent

I put him on Ax and I was betting to protect my hand all the way through. Once the third 8 appeared I never believed he could have an 8 after calling my initial raise. I figured at that stage he had JJ or something like that. That's why I pushed on the end, thinking if he had AA then fair enough.

Maybe I should have checked the flop once I saw a pair out there. What really annoys me most about the hand is that at no stage did I know where I was at with the way I was leading out throughout.

Amaru

If he called on an 883 rainbow flop, why would you put him on Ax? Checking the flop would be horrible here, as you have no idea where you are. As it is, when he calls, you have to at least consider that you're behind. When he calls on the turn, you must then strongly consider that you're behind.

Ste05

Ardent wrote:

Everyone limps and I raise it to $2.50.

What do you mean by "Everyone limps" - how many players is this?? Just trying to work out how big the pot was on the flop....

Ardent

Amaru wrote:

If he called on an 883 rainbow flop, why would you put him on Ax?

Figured he was another loose tribeca player hoping for their AK/AQ/AJ to come good. You're right though, after the call on the flop I should put have the brakes on. He could even have had 99 for all I knew.

You learn a new situation every day.

Ardent

Ste05 wrote:

What do you mean by "Everyone limps" - how many players is this?? Just trying to work out how big the pot was on the flop....

Sorry not literally "everyone limps". It was a 6 seater table. 3 limped before me, one folded, comes to me and I raise to 2.50. Everyone folds except for BB and BB+1.

Ste05

Ardent wrote:

Sorry not literally "everyone limps". It was a 6 seater table. 3 limped before me, one folded, comes to me and I raise to 2.50. Everyone folds except for BB and BB+1.

Ah OK, so the pot was about $8.50 after the flop, although I was just trying to see what a bigger bet would have achieved, but I think it would have achieved the same sort of result, I could only really see a pocket pair, or an 8 calling here, for either amount, and whatever you do on the flop or turn the third 8 on the river would mean that only a lone 8 (unlikely based on his pre-flop call), pocket 9's (unlikely after his flop call and one hitting the turn) or pocket A's could beat you.

And so it would be very very difficult to get away from. You might have been possibly able to check the turn but it would have been difficult not to have all the chips going in the middle on this river. Unless you just check call the river. Although I think I'd lead again, get re-raised all-in then call.

IMHO this was just unlucky after looking into the hand a bit....

careca

Ste05 wrote:

IMHO this was just unlucky after looking into the hand a bit....

Not sure about this. He was unlucky that the 8s hit but could easily have got away from it. As Amuru says, the call on the flop should have set alarm bells off. And again as HJ has said and its been mentioned here lots of times, you put him on Ax (even on a board of 883) because it suited you to do so as your hand would be beating Ax.

Waylander

I think any pocket pair that called a preflop raise would call again on the flops so I do not agree with Amaru's point. i do not think you could easily get away from this hand. His range of hands are 99 to AA, possibly AK, and it would be hard to put him on an 8 with the preflop raise. You are ahead of most of these hands so I think it was just bad luck.

Lafortezza

As soon as that 3rd 8 comes on the river I think all my chips would be going in the middle anyway, you're behind 8x and AA, and you should get action from any pocket pair smaller than KK and possibly AK-AJ.

Ste05

careca wrote:

Not sure about this. He was unlucky that the 8s hit but could easily have got away from it.

When??

careca wrote:

As Amuru says, the call on the flop should have set alarm bells off.

Indeed, so as I said he could possibly have checked the turn, and who knows what would have happened,

careca wrote:

And again as HJ has said and its been mentioned here lots of times, you put him on Ax (even on a board of 883) because it suited you to do so as your hand would be beating Ax.

Myself certainly wouldn't have put him on Axs here, and in fact I didn't really think that he might have called pre-flop with A8s, (highly unlikely given decent raise pre-flop - if he calls, as he did here, with any hand that has a bare 8 in it, then you can pick off his money later when he doesn't hit miracle boards )
As I said in my post, I'd only expect to be called on the flop by a pair or the 8. However when the third 8 fell on the river there's only 3 hands that still beat you, 99, a lone 8 or AA. So basically when this 8 comes on the river, the chances of him having the case 8, 99 or AA, compared to the times he'll have an under pair or hand that will call and lose is huge and I think it would actually be -EV to fold on this river.

This part I'd like comments on if possible, the EV of going all-in on this river, be it calling or raising. And obviously with little to no reads, the decision should technically be solely EV based.

But as always I'm open to correction and criticism.

a-k-47

i find you have to raise it by more than 4bb to stop limpers calling on ppp, especially at .25/.50.. u were ul but **** happens. pokers are as common as muck lol

Amaru

Waylander wrote:

I think any pocket pair that called a preflop raise would call again on the flops so I do not agree with Amaru's point.

The reason i rule out a pocket pair is because any high PP would more than likely reraise his flop bet. If he has 99-QQ, he still needs to protect his hand to stop A or K falling on the turn and river. Him calling here almost certainly indicates he's trapping.

Coincidentally, if the flop was instead underpaired, say 8 8 T, i'd play this hand completely different, as there's a possibility he'd be calling you down with top pair. If i fired again on the turn after an overcard came out and he called, then i'd be almost certain he has the 8.

Amaru

careca wrote:

Not sure about this. He was unlucky that the 8s hit but could easily have got away from it

Ste05 wrote:

When??

On the river. After he called twice, you should assume that he has you beaten seen as he's called twice. You should check the river, and if he bets, i think you should fold here. As the saying goes, with Kings, you're either going to win a small pot, or lose a big one. There's no need for it to be the latter here, and getting away from this hand is limiting the damage.

Ste05

Amaru wrote:

On the river. After he called twice, you should assume that he has you beaten seen as he's called twice. You should check the river, and if he bets, i think you should fold here. As the saying goes, with Kings, you're either going to win a small pot, or lose a big one. There's no need for it to be the latter here, and getting away from this hand is limiting the damage.

Absolutely not. Folding to a bet on this particular river is terrible play. I don't think your analysis is good if based on this actual hand. Just because you are called twice does not mean you are beaten. What ever about the flop if you were re-raised or if you check the turn and he bets out, but if you always fold on this river it's just incredibly Weak Tight and to put anyone on the case 8 after calling a decent pre-flop raise is impossible without a serious read on the Villian.

Amaru

I was wondering when the words "weak tight" would come up, like folding is the absolute worst thing in the world. Folding does not make you weak tight, especially if its the correct play. It's funny what you say about assumptions through reads, because you can't actually assume you're ahead unless you have a read on the person(ie a calling station). It's one of the most misunderstood concepts of hold em that you need a stronger hand to call with than to raise with. Or, as one of the best online players in the world put it on 2+2

This is easy, with no reads, if your bet is raised, or your raise is reraised, their hand is better than yours is. If you bet, and are called, their hand is probably better as well.

It really is that simple.

Ste05

Read the hand in question please and then come back with an analysis based on it.... Pre-Flop, Flop, Turn and River......

Amaru

I've already posted 5 times with analysis on this hand. What more do you want?

In summary:
Preflop: you're ahead of pretty much everything, raise is good but pretty much announces QQ, KK, AA or AK
flop: standard bet, flat calling means you should slow down
turn: make a second bet to find where you're at, flat calling twice is a VERY bad sign
river: you cannot push here. You are almost certainly behind. Check here, fold to a big bet, calling a small bet is optional.

Ste05

Amaru wrote:

river: you cannot push here. You are almost certainly behind. Check here, fold to a big bet, calling a small bet is optional.

Behind to what exactly - i.e. a legitimate hand that would have called a decent Pre-Flop raise???

Also bearing in mind also that this is a cash game, there's about $34 in the pot, and you've about $10 left...... you still fold here???

Amaru

An 8, obviously. It doesn't matter what he called with, because(even if he doesn't know it), he has implied odds to crack a big hand like KK or AA. Look at the hand hector posted in the bad beat thread recently where he didn't pay a guy off with the underfull when quads, 3 kings on the board. The guy played the hand the EXACT same way. He called all the way to the river trying to trap. This is a basic basic trap play. A good player will recognise this immediately and slow down(not to say i'm a good player, i've lost more money betting aggressively into this trap than any other).

Your point about the 10 dollars left, if you're certain you're behind, you still throw the last of your money away? Why?

Ste05

Except there's a big difference between having 3 K's on the board compared to one with 3 8's. Especially with a 5x BB raise Pre-Flop, but anyway, I'll leave it there. This is going nowhere.
I'll just say to fold to a river bet here, when the pot's offering you over 3:1 is not a good Cash Game play.

EDIT: Just read HJ's post in the BB thread, and that hand is in not comparable to this one.

Bozzer

Ste is right Amaru.
Pushing is best because villain could check behind with hands you're beating but will likely call with these underpairs considering his pot odds and the fact that he's called two streets.
Check calling is not good because I can't see any hands villain will bet when checked to, yet fold had you bet.
Check folding is pretty horrible with the pot odds you're being offered, especially considering the stakes.

Amaru

Okay, i'll put it this way. He's flat called 2 big bets. What do you think he has? What hands would you flat call with in this situation? If the 3rd 8 came out on the river, would you bet if you didn't have it?

Bozzer

Villain could call this river with 10's-Q's and maybe the likes of 66/77.
I think villain could have played these hands like this on flop & turn.
You're definitely giving too much credit to an unknown villain at .25/.5.

You do realise that the 8 on the river makes it a lot more likely villain doesn't have an 8, but that's beside the point.

Amaru

Bozzer wrote:

I think villain could have played these hands like this on flop & turn.
You're definitely giving too much credit to an unknown villain at .25/.5.

You've made my point for me. You're assuming he's weak tight, and that he'll call all the way to the river without a solid hand. What's that read based on?

Tackle

Amaru wrote:

An 8, obviously. It doesn't matter what he called with, because(even if he doesn't know it), he has implied odds to crack a big hand like KK or AA. Look at the hand hector posted in the bad beat thread recently where he didn't pay a guy off with the underfull when quads, 3 kings on the board. The guy played the hand the EXACT same way. He called all the way to the river trying to trap.

That hand was totally different. For a start it was unraised, and secondly there was a very disproportionate bet on the river into a small pot.

If you bet the turn here and are called you have to bet the river, at .25/.50 you could be called by just about any lower pocket pair. On the river you have to call $10 for the $30 pot if someone puts you all in, so why would you check it and let the lower pocket pairs off cheaply?

I don't think the OP could have got away from this hand easily at this level especially as he has a relatively short stack and is pot commited after the turn.

Your point about the 10 dollars left, if you're certain you're behind, you still throw the last of your money away? Why?

How can you be certain you're behind? You'll loose money in the long run checking the river, when you have to call if someone bets anyway, and not getting paid off by the lower pp's.

wayfarer

I would have no difficulty in putting a person on an 8, especially at these limits when they have already called the blinds. Hands like 89s would start to go through my mind. Ive been raped in a similar situation by 53s when holding AA that made trips.

One thing you need to take into account is that some of the hands that you you are beating that have been suggested, the villian is unlikely to be holding since he would have certainly raised pre-flop with them.

Another thing, your all-in on the river is only going to be called by very few hands other than the case 8 when you eliminate those that would have raised pre-flop. Especially given the aggression showed. If I was the opponent, I would say that it is unlikely that you are holding anything less than the 8 (had he not had it!1), AA, KK or QQ

I would have checked on the river but would have had great difficulty not calling a bet, even an all-in.

Ste05

Amaru wrote:

You've made my point for me. You're assuming he's weak tight, and that he'll call all the way to the river without a solid hand. What's that read based on?

It's not him who's weak tight by calling, it's just passive, it's Weak Tight to fold to this river bet....

Ste05

wayfarer wrote:

I would have no difficulty in putting a person on an 8, especially at these limits when they have already called the blinds. Hands like 89s would start to go through my mind. Ive been raped in a similar situation to 53s when holding AA that made trips.

Again that's different to quads though.... and did he call a 5x BB raise with 53s???

wayfarer

Ste05 wrote:

Again that's different to quads though.... and did he call a 5x BB raise with 53s???

Yeah, I think I went from 20 to 100, it was definately more than 2x anyway. I gave up playing poker for about 2 weeks after because of it, I was so stunned!!!

Ste05

wayfarer wrote:

Yeah, I think I went from 20 to 100, it was definately more than 2x anyway. I gave up playing poker for about 2 weeks after because of it, I was so stunned!!!

In a cash game!!! :eek: OMFG, that deserves a BB thread post.......

Tackle

wayfarer wrote:

I would have no difficulty in putting a person on an 8

Oh yeah, they definately could have it, but they could have alot of other hands here too.

Another thing, your all-in on the river is only going to be called by very few hands other than the case 8 when you eliminate those that would have raised pre-flop. Especially given the aggression showed. If I was the opponent, I would say that it is unlikely that you are holding anything less than the 8 (had he not had it!1), AA, KK or QQ

You could be called by lots of lower pocket pairs that would also be pot commited after the turn. The problem is you have to call the river anyway. If you bet it you could still be called by many hands that you beat so it you have to bet it.

Ardent

Thanks for analyses guys, it's an interesting situation no doubt.

If it had been a much higher stakes table I doubt I'd have bet so much on the turn as to leave me pot committed. This hand loss was a small dent in my bankroll and I wasn't upset about the beat.

At .25/.50, I've often seen guys calling to the river with no pair and re-raising all in pre-flop with low pocket pairs. I honestly could not see an 8 in this guy's hand after 1) my pre-flop raise and 2) three 8s out there on the board. I had no read on the villain but, rightly or wrongly, I put him on a mid pair. I had to go all in on the river with what I had left in the belief that he had to have aces to beat me.

Just one of those evil hands. Phil Helmuth would be muttering "donkey" about the villain's pre-flop call. 9 times out of 10 his call would be easy winnings for me.

Lesson: as Amaru reckons, next time check the turn when the board is paired like that. I think that's the only way I could have got off this hand.

Amaru

Don't check the turn, check the river. Most people will call your continuation bet in these situations, thinking you're trying to buy the pot with AK. If you bet on the turn, you're saying you have a real hand, but if he's calling here, he's saying he has a better one.

I'm still confused by this, why do people think you have to call/bet on the river? This is only confounding your mistake.

wayfarer

Ste05 wrote:

In a cash game!!! :eek: OMFG, that deserves a BB thread post.......

That was actually at the start of a 10 cash game but I remember it distinctly because I had a hand second only to 53, it was rainbow and unpaired. It happened again with 53 in a cash game at around these limits after, but I played the hand badly with only top pair leaving a fair few hands that would have had me beaten.

I was beginning to think it was a bit of a genius move because its the last hand anybody would ever put you on!

Now I do 53s

Checking the turn wouldn't have been a bad idea since if you're ahead by that stage, you're very likely to be ahead on the river and you must have had doubts after he flat called on the flop. Re-evaluate after you've seen what he does.

EDIT:

Amaru wrote:

Don't check the turn, check the river. Most people will call your continuation bet in these situations, thinking you're trying to buy the pot with AK. If you bet on the turn, you're saying you have a real hand, but if he's calling here, he's saying he has a better one.

Just read this, checking wouldn't really work unless you had a read on the opponent.

Ste05

Amaru wrote:

I'm still confused by this, why do people think you have to call/bet on the river? This is only confounding your mistake.

Do you play much cash games Amaru? Because if he's calling these type of raises with hands like this, you can just reload and take all the money back with interest later. And since he's immediately to your right, he's the one player you'll be playing with most in pots, just hope he doesn't give your money away before you get a chance to win it back.

Amaru

What's the guarantee? Like i said, it's possible he understands implied odds, and can get out of hands cheaply. We're all working off the assumption that he's a bad player, but Hector posted a hand where he called a reraise against AK with 92, for this exact reason.

If he folds here, he still has 22BB more than enough to still play poker with, and he can always reload for more. Plus, like i said, with 3 of the same card showing on the board, if somebody doesn't hold the case 8, they'll probably check behind fearing the SB is trapping and wanting to get the hand shown down.

Ste05

Amaru wrote:

What's the guarantee? Like i said, it's possible he understands implied odds, and can get out of hands cheaply. We're all working off the assumption that he's a bad player, but Hector posted a hand where he called a reraise against AK with 92, for this exact reason.

Well we can all agree that HJ is a good player, but with no reads (yet) on this guy, we have to work with the information we have. Here the evidence points to him being a below average player; he called a 5x BB raise with 78o, and TBH, there isn't enough implied odds in this hand to make this call based on implied odds, (possibly there was if he expected every limper to also call, but that is doubtful) and because Ardent only had about another $22.5 or so left, it was really pointless calling hoping to stack him, (normally he won't) in general for implied odds to allow you to call a good raise pre-flop, you want to be going after people with deep stacks, when you also have a nice stack, so you can get a proper pay-day. Or on the off chance that he gets multiple players involved in the pot, but TBH 78o, isn't really good enough even in that situation.

So unless we find out anything to the contrary, we must go on the info we have, and that is, that this player is a below average player. And until we are shown otherwise, (hopefully when we're not involved in the pot) we work away on the basis that he is what he appears to be. You shouldn't doubt what you have seen, until you see something to tell you otherwise.

Amaru wrote:

If he folds here, he still has 22BB more than enough to still play poker with

Not really in a cash game, you should have at least 90BB's really, (and that's still a bit dodgy, 100+ is optimum), but that's another threads worth of discussion. If you're left with 22BB as he would have been here, it's a completely different Short Stacked strategy needed, when you enter the pot, you're playing with your whole stack, there's very little chance you can force someone to fold by betting.

Tackle

Don't check the turn, check the river. Most people will call your continuation bet in these situations, thinking you're trying to buy the pot with AK. If you bet on the turn, you're saying you have a real hand, but if he's calling here, he's saying he has a better one.

If he's calling here it's because he either has the 8 or he's got a lower pocket pair and is now pot commited.

I'm still confused by this, why do people think you have to call/bet on the river? This is only confounding your mistake.

Firstly, you're giving alot of credit to a random villain on .25/.50 on ppp. Most of these players are poor. The range of hands he could have here is quite large, too large to warrant a fold if he bets when you only have to call $10 to win $30.
Secondly, you shouldn't be even checking the river to him anyway as his range of hands includes lots that you beat - QQ-1010 & 77-55 (maybe even lower, he could think you have overcards, etc...), and A9, maybe even K9.

As you can't fold if he bets with the 8 anyway, you should be going all in, on the basis that he may have a worse hand that he's now pot committed to calling with. The only hands that will check are ones that you beat and may very likely have called if you bet. Not going all in on the river here is a terrible waste of money in the long run.

Amaru wrote:

What's the guarantee? Like i said, it's possible he understands implied odds, and can get out of hands cheaply. We're all working off the assumption that he's a bad player, but Hector posted a hand where he called a reraise against AK with 92, for this exact reason.

He is a bad player, the vast majority of them are at this level. At .25/.50, you'll often have players who'll call twice with hands like AK or AQ and if you check the river they could go all in on a bluff. Not to mention the pocket pairs who could also go all in the river if you checked, probably thinking you've got AK or AQ yourself. So, again, the river has to be called anyway, with the 3-1 pot odds you're getting and the strong possibility that a hand that goes all in may be behind you or on a bluff.

Plus, like i said, with 3 of the same card showing on the board, if somebody doesn't hold the case 8, they'll probably check behind fearing the SB is trapping and wanting to get the hand shown down.

If they don't hold the 8, they've checked down a hand they may have called with and you haven't maximized your profits in the long run. If they do have the 8, you have to call anyway.

Amaru

Tackle wrote:

He is a bad player, the vast majority of them are at this level. At .25/.50, you'll often have players who'll call twice with hands like AK or AQ and if you check the river they could go all in on a bluff. Not to mention the pocket pairs who could also go all in the river if you checked, probably thinking you've got AK or AQ yourself. So, again, the river has to be called anyway, with the 3-1 pot odds you're getting and the strong possibility that a hand that goes all in may be behind you or on a bluff.

I know what the players are like at this level, but you cannot tell with only 1 HH what kind of player somebody is. OP didn't even provide any background on what type of player he was, or any previous hands he'd been involved in. Does the logic behind making a dangerous push in the hope that somebody else's mistake will make the play profitable not seem a little twisted to you?

Bozzer

Amaru wrote:

I know what the players are like at this level, but you cannot tell with only 1 HH what kind of player somebody is. OP didn't even provide any background on what type of player he was, or any previous hands he'd been involved in. Does the logic behind making a dangerous push in the hope that somebody else's mistake will make the play profitable not seem a little twisted to you?

Your right, it is a bit ignorant of us to treat villain as an unknown when we know nothing about him!

Our profit in poker comes from our opponent's mistakes, so the logic of the push is not twisted.

Amaru

Bozzer wrote:

Your right, it is a bit ignorant of us to treat villain as an unknown when we know nothing about him!

Our profit in poker comes from our opponent's mistakes, so the logic of the push is not twisted.

You missed my point. You're hoping the opponent makes an incorrect call after you make an incorrect push. And profit does not just come from opponents mistakes, it comes from your lack of mistakes. I think folding this river is by no means a mistake. "Money saved is money earned" as Mike Caro would say.

Bozzer

Amaru wrote:

You missed my point. You're hoping the opponent makes an incorrect call after you make an incorrect push. And profit does not just come from opponents mistakes, it comes from your lack of mistakes. I think folding this river is by no means a mistake. "Money saved is money earned" as Mike Caro would say.

What you say about profit is just an obvious extension of what I wrote.
The rest of your post has been argued to death so I'm not gonna bother.
Basically you think the push is incorrect because he's not gonna call with enough worse hands, while I think it is correct because he will make those incorrect calls. It doesn't look we're gonna agree on this so I'll just leave it at that.

Tackle

Amaru wrote:

You missed my point. You're hoping the opponent makes an incorrect call after you make an incorrect push. And profit does not just come from opponents mistakes, it comes from your lack of mistakes. I think folding this river is by no means a mistake. "Money saved is money earned" as Mike Caro would say.

Amaru, I know you're a very capable stt player but do you any cash games? Have you played at .25/.50 level? Folding the river for $10 is terrible play, you don't think someone with A9,K9,QQ-1010 is incapable of going all in if you check here, putting you on AK/AQ? That's not to mention, the guys who could've missed with their overcards or have a low pocket pair and may try and bluff it if you check, a regular occurance. Some hands just have to be called based on the opponents hand range and the money in the pot, and this is definately one of them.
Of course you're hoping he makes an incorrect call, that's how you make money in poker. You beat lots of hands that will call here. The push is not incorrect, checking is.

I know what the players are like at this level, but you cannot tell with only 1 HH what kind of player somebody is

At this level you work under the assumption that the villain is average-poor until you're proved otherwise. It'll cost you more than it'll save you if you give too much credit to random villains on .25/.50.

padser

Amaru wrote:

You missed my point. You're hoping the opponent makes an incorrect call after you make an incorrect push. And profit does not just come from opponents mistakes, it comes from your lack of mistakes. I think folding this river is by no means a mistake. "Money saved is money earned" as Mike Caro would say.

Amaru, I hate to jump into an argument against someone when they are already clearly outnumbered but i think there are only a few situations where there is a right and wrong answer.

This hand was played out in my opinion by the OP almost perfectly (insofar as a poker hand can be played perfectly) and had no chance to ever get away.

Pre Flop He raised 5BB which was 3BB plus 2BB (there had been 3 limpers). With KK obviously he had to think he was ahead. No chance to get away there.

Flop; He bets half the pot (actually i would have betted the pot but im not going to split hairs, in hindsight the 8 wouldnt have folded to a pot sized bet obviously). He had to lead out with his KK and the call should only set off mild alarm bells inside his head. 95% of the time he is still ahead here. All he has to be afraid of is AA and A8, possibly 88 (highly unlikely with 2 8's on the flop). He can probably discount AA as it would probably have re raised either pre flop or now to protect itself against getting outdrawn.

Turn Comes 9. THis is a good card. Unless he was leading to 99 he is still ahead. Again he bets half the pot. He gets called. Now he is ahead 90% (at worst 80%) of the time.

River: 8. Great card. Changes nothing except it means he wasnt facing 88 which might have called pre flop. and makes A8 highly unlikely. I would say at this point you are fearing nothing really except AA or 99. You are ahead 80-90% of the time. IF you are beaten and check he will bet and you will call. So checking gains nothing if you are beaten. It seems unlikely he will fold anything he called with on flop and turn since he is getting 4-1 to call and there were no draws. He must call with any pair and AK possibly AQ. Therefore the only thing I can see that will happen if you check, is that if you are ahead, you wouldnt get an extra $10 from him you would have.

If you put opponents on and 8 with this type of board/play you will loose money by it in the short/meduim run.

wayfarer

Put yourself in the villans shoes:

It's 4th street and your opponent has fired off another sizable bet, making it a raise or bet on every street so far. What hands are you putting him on and hence what hands are you going to call with? By leading out with a bet each time after every one of your calls, he obviously thinks he still ahead, you can't seriously think he has much less than AA or KK.

Theres something wrong with your logic if you say that he will call here with any pocket pair but won't call a raise pre-flop holding a range of hands containing an 8.

Tackle

wayfarer wrote:

Put yourself in the villans shoes:

It's 4th street and your opponent has fired off another sizable bet, making it a raise or bet on every street so far. What hands are you putting him on and hence what hands are you going to call with? By leading out with a bet each time after every one of your calls, he obviously thinks he still ahead, you can't seriously think he has much less than AA or KK.

This happens all the time at .25/.50, it's full of calling stations. There are lots of hands here that will call $10 to win $30. If he called with a pocket pair or A9/K9 on the turn, why would he now fold the river? You could even be called by AK. A random villain at this level gives much more thought to his own hand than his opponents.

Theres something wrong with your logic if you say that he will call here with any pocket pair but won't call a raise pre-flop holding a range of hands containing an 8.

Of course he could have the 8. The thing is you can't fold the river anyway if he does have it, so should go all in to maximize earnings on the times that he has a worse hand. Is it really that hard to understand?

wayfarer

I understand it, I just think it was a bad idea to put your whole bankroll at stake in a hand where you couldn't really be that suprised when he showed a hand that has you beaten in the end.

Ste05

wayfarer wrote:

I understand it, I just think it was a bad idea to put your whole bankroll at stake in a hand where you couldn't really be that suprised when he showed a hand that has you beaten in the end.

I'm sure this wasn't his whole bankroll.
If you're beaten, you just re-load, but you can't fold here. the pot is too big to let go for $10