Defensive bet on the end

Brayruit

(Note in advance – please forgive quite long story as prelude for what is probably a fairly straightforward question…. But I’ve written it now, so I may as well post it!)

Playing a home dealers choice 6 handed cash game on Friday night, and for the last round the dealer decided to play Southern Cross. My general view on this "game" is that a showdown is usually won with a good full house, sometimes won with a flush, and very rarely won with anything else unless there are 2 players bluffing from early on (agree?).

It was half pot limit (the same group has been playing together about 3 times a year for 22 years now… that might explain the structure? Also it is just a friendly game where players would tend to win or lose up to €100 and rarely more. The players are thoughtful and intelligent but totally inexperienced).

I was dealt 4 diamonds in my hand to the queen, and hit another diamond when the first card was turned over. So now my thinking was that I should be aggressive to push out high pairs, etc. so that they didn’t have the opportunity to hang around for a full house (comments?).

I can’t remember much of the details of the earlier rounds, but suffice to say that I was able to push up the pot to a good size relative to the initial ante. I was leading each round with a half pot bet and getting called by one other player.

The other player is quite straightforward and I was absolutely certain that he was on a strong draw which was most likely to beat me if he hit. The nature of southern cross was that I was not going to know (tells aside) if he hit because there are so many cards hidden (too many hidden to make this a worthwhile game imo… but that’s another topic).

When 4 cards had been turned, there was €33 in the pot (dealer-only initial ante was €1) so I bet €16.50. The other player thought for a good while and started talking about it being the last hand of the night and he wanted to win some chips back from me, blah blah blah…. basically telling me that he was still drawing. I know the player well enough to be completely sure that this was not a bluff. Anyway he ends up throwing in the call bringing the pot to €66.

It’s wrecking my head here trying to analyse whether he was correct to call here. It depends on how many outs he had (he actually had only 4) and whether he would expect me to lead out on the river, and then whether he would expect me to call a re-raise. If the latter, then he is getting 9-1 on this investment, but (and this is actually important here!) the pot would have to reach a gargantuan size by the standard of this game and the players would actually be quite uncomfortable with the idea of raising a very large pot in a friendly game.

Last card is turned over. I can’t remember what is was and I don’t think that it matters anyway.

I lead out for €33.

The other player folds face up and shows that he was drawing to AA44 and had no other outs. I showed my hand too.

As I said, that was the last hand of the night and as we are chipping up to go, the other player asked me why I bet on the end. I said that it was mainly because I didn’t want to give him an opportunity to bluff me off the pot.

He said that that didn’t make sense because he could still re raise and it would get very expensive to look him up. In other words he was arguing that I would be better off check calling than betting. It also occurred to me since then that I might have induced a bluff. I think he might be right.

So, the question is… what was the right move on the end? I don't think that the question is particular to Southern Cross, but more to half pot / pot limit games.

mewso

Well Southern Cross is not a game I have played since college but on your actual question I would say it's very player dependent and seeing as this is your home game you will know your opponent better than anyone here might.

If hes always going to fold a missed draw to a bet and raise when he beats you then betting out is the wrong play. You should know the answer after 20 years.

Brayruit

phantom_lord wrote:

it doesn't make any sense, if you think they have a missed draw you should check giving them the chance to bluff it.

Making the question specific to southern cross again... I can have no idea if he missed his draw...

Same logic even if I don't know whether he missed the draw?

And going back to NLHE... I am likely to have a better idea if there is a missed draw - so am I generally making a mistake with this practice?

mewso

Brayruit wrote:

So now I have a more general question: I would often bet on the end in NLHE to defend against a possible bluff from someone I put on a draw. Is this very often a wrong move? Clearly it is influenced by what I know of the other player. Is it also affected by the difference between NL and Half Pot Limit (or Pot Limit)?

If someone likes to bluff on the river I would tend to give them every opportunity. If you know them to be a bluffer then you will be check calling them every time and if he really is a serial bluffer you will win in the long run.

I suppose the NL/PL thing would have a bearing on how big the bluff might be and how difficult a call you might have but if his bluffing frequency is high then it really won't matter.

This is all imo and if the experts are throwing their eyes to heaven they'll soon pop in here to correct me anyway.

Sklansky has some great stuff on river decisions in his No Limit Holdem Theory and Practice book if you can wade through the maths.

mewso

Brayruit wrote:

Making the question specific to southern cross again... I can have no idea if he missed his draw...

I'm not sure it's worth discussing things from the Southern Cross point of view as it's a gamling game. What you will know about his draw will be entirely based on your knowledge of the player.

Brayruit wrote:

And going back to NLHE... I am likely to have a better idea if there is a missed draw - so am I generally making a mistake with this practice?

It's important to build notes on players, generate stats on them using Pokertracker etc. so these decisions are easier. You need to put him on certain holdings based on his actions and then make your decision based on this. You'll often see discussions here where people ask what you had your opponent on or what kind of player he is. If you ask what to do when you have no idea what the player has then we, like you, can but guess. If I think a player is highly like to have a missed draw and could bluff at it if I check then thats what I do.

phantom_lord

Brayruit wrote:

Making the question specific to southern cross again... I can have no idea if he missed his draw...

Same logic even if I don't know whether he missed the draw?

presuming he only calls a bet with a better hand;
if you are behind the most you can lose on the river is one bet if you check, if u bet he can raise, so you lose more when you're behind, assuming you call.

he folds a missed draw to a bet, but if you check there's a chance he might bluff it, which you call. so the most profitable play against his range of missed draws/better hands is c/c.

And going back to NLHE... I am likely to have a better idea if there is a missed draw - so am I generally making a mistake with this practice?

yep.

RoundTower

it's definitely possible that this is the right move against some weak/predictable players, especially in a game like Southern Cross where there are so many down cards and it is hard to know whether the river helped him.

In general it's not the most profitable way to play and it is exploitable, meaning a savvy opponent is going to realise he can bluff raise you here.

kebabfest

I used to play a lot of Southern Cross and I quite like the bet at the end.
The other lad would need serious gonads to reraise you with nothing after the many rounds of betting.
Does your card school give any free cards in SC ?
Your only mistake I didnt like was showing your mates your cards. I know home games are more for the craic then anything else, but if you didnt show and hit an absolute monster later on you're more likely to get paid off.

fuzzbox

This depends a lot on your opponent.

If he is straight forward, then the best move is to check/fold the river, because he will not bet at all without a better hand than yours, and you gain nothing by betting, because he will not call with a worse hand.

If he is aggressive, then the best move is to check/call the river, because he will bluff too much when he misses

If he is a calling station, then your play seems good, because he can call with worse hands, but wont raise without a better hand, so you can bet/fold here with impunity.

If he is a good player, then your plan can be good, as he might bluff with the "right" frequencies to give you a very hard time on the river (if you check), but he might not bluff-raise you with the "right" frequencies (if you bet smallish).

So, in short ... it depends .

From the sounds of this guy - I like check/fold.

Brayruit

RoundTower wrote:

a game like Southern Cross where there are so many down cards.

that's why it's not really a good game imo

Brayruit

kebabfest wrote:

I used to play a lot of Southern Cross and I quite like the bet at the end.
The other lad would need serious gonads to reraise you with nothing after the many rounds of betting.
Does your card school give any free cards in SC ?
Your only mistake I didnt like was showing your mates your cards. I know home games are more for the craic then anything else, but if you didnt show and hit an absolute monster later on you're more likely to get paid off.

That was my logic, but actually if he had hit a house, I would think he would be coming back at me so I now think that it was a bad move.

No free cards in SC - six rounds of betting. The other lads like limping along - I never let them if I have anything at all.

I almost never show... it was the last hand of the night so that's why I showed on this occasion.

Brayruit

fuzzbox wrote:

This depends a lot on your opponent.

If he is straight forward, then the best move is to check/fold the river, because he will not bet at all without a better hand than yours, and you gain nothing by betting, because he will not call with a worse hand.

If he is aggressive, then the best move is to check/call the river, because he will bluff too much when he misses

If he is a calling station, then your play seems good, because he can call with worse hands, but wont raise without a better hand, so you can bet/fold here with impunity.

If he is a good player, then your plan can be good, as he might bluff with the "right" frequencies to give you a very hard time on the river (if you check), but he might not bluff-raise you with the "right" frequencies (if you bet smallish).

So, in short ... it depends .

From the sounds of this guy - I like check/fold.

Good summary... He is not a calling station - I think that they are a rare breed unfortunately. He is also not sophisticated to bluff with a certain frequency (and I would be calling anyway).

Thanks to all for replies.... I learnt something at poker without having to pay!