Good but not great hand on the river

[byronkincaid]

STAGE #490770384: HOLDEM NO LIMIT $2 - 2006-11-12 09:03:01 (ET)
Table: OXFORD AVE (Real Money) Seat #6 is the dealer
Seat 6 - JOCOURIER ($81.85 in chips)
Seat 1 - HARLEYDAVSON ($103.75 in chips)
Seat 2 - DAMLAM ($368.05 in chips)
Seat 3 - PURELUCK_ ($122.05 in chips)
Seat 4 - GOTCHA_ ($311.50 in chips)
Seat 5 - FIELDMOB ($311.80 in chips)
HARLEYDAVSON - Posts small blind $1
DAMLAM - Posts big blind $2
*** POCKET CARDS ***
Dealt to GOTCHA_ [ ]
PURELUCK_ - Raises $6 to $6
GOTCHA_ - Calls $6
FIELDMOB - Calls $6
JOCOURIER - Folds
HARLEYDAVSON - Folds
DAMLAM - Folds
*** FLOP *** [ ]
PURELUCK_ - Checks
GOTCHA_ - Bets $16
FIELDMOB - Calls $16
PURELUCK_ - Folds
*** TURN *** [ ] []
GOTCHA_ - Bets $36
FIELDMOB - Calls $36
*** RIVER *** [ ] []

Pot is $125. I have a lot of trouble knowing when to check/call, block bet or value bet rivers. I tend to check/call and it's amazing the amount of times I induce a bluff, but that can't be the best play the amount of times that I am doing it.

What would you do here. If I bet $70 then I'm folding to an all in right? What about a min raise?

If I check call am I calling up to say a pot sized bet? I have to fold to a push?

Fieldmob is a fairly solid regular player.

[TightEnd]

Interesting post


Check call is fine I think here. Whilst he might have housed up you could be ahead/chopping, so why leave yourself facing a raise you will hate? The uncertainties are also such that its not a clear value bet for you. I'd be more tempted to check call an all in than an obvious value bet too!

At this levels I have tended to find blocking bets have a lower "utility" (success rate) than live against experienced players as a lot of your foes won't see it as a block and will often see it as a weak bet and mis-read it and try and push you off.

Interested in others' perceptions on this

Finally if check calling if in doubt is an EV+ play for you in these games why is it the wrong "standard" play?

[byronkincaid]

i read somewhere that if you're going to hate a raise then don't bet. that is great but as i say sometimes i must be missing out on value eg in this hand if he has 2 pair and checks behind and other times a blocking bet may save me money eg if he has a higher straight and will call a half pot bet but will bet pot if i check.

just an area of confusion for me.

[snoopy1239]

I would have raised that Flop to find out where I was. You have position on the initial raiser and can use that to your advantage if he simply flat calls.

I'd check call the River. There aren't enough hands that will pay you off if you are indeed ahead.

Generally, I am very cautious with middling pocket pairs that miss a set as the chances are that you're not going to win a very big pot with them.

[snoopy1239]

i read somewhere that if you're going to hate a raise then don't bet.

I don't agree with that. Often you need to value bet.

[Sheriff Fatman]

I think its a Sklansky comment along the lines of "don't bet if the sight of a re-raise would make you physically sick!"

Sheriff

[TightEnd]

i read somewhere that if you're going to hate a raise then don't bet.

I don't agree with that. Often you need to value bet.

but here it is not clear a value bet is correct given his foe's range

Forget how byron got to this point, first to act on the river if he bets say $75 he's hating a push all in by his foe

[snoopy1239]

i read somewhere that if you're going to hate a raise then don't bet.

I don't agree with that. Often you need to value bet.

but here it is not clear a value bet is correct given his foe's range

Forget how byron got to this point, first to act on the river if he bets say $75 he's hating a push all in by his foe

The quote is speaking generally.

I'd check call the river in Byron's case, as I said before.

[totalise]

re: the sklansky comment.

that generally means that you shouldn't bet if you dont know what to do if you get raised. Against some people you will know its an insta-call, against some its an insta-fold. If you dont have specific reads but have a general idea of how they are playing/what they are capable of, then you shouldn't be sweating a raise too much here.

its impossible really to say what to do here because it is entirely going to depend on the style of the opponent. I think betting a biggish % of the pot is a huge mistake though. I'd rather bet a small amount, to facilitate this:

At this levels I have tended to find blocking bets have a lower "utility" (success rate) than live against experienced players as a lot of your foes won't see it as a block and will often see it as a weak bet and mis-read it and try and push you off.

or to get some value out of a filthy hand... or I would just check and call/fold depending on their bet-size. If they aren't very good, checking is more superior to the weak-lead, if they are pretty competent, weak-lead is superior to the check. IMO

[boldie]

re: the sklansky comment.

that generally means that you shouldn't bet if you dont know what to do if you get raised. Against some people you will know its an insta-call, against some its an insta-fold. If you dont have specific reads but have a general idea of how they are playing/what they are capable of, then you shouldn't be sweating a raise too much here.

its impossible really to say what to do here because it is entirely going to depend on the style of the opponent. I think betting a biggish % of the pot is a huge mistake though. I'd rather bet a small amount, to facilitate this:

At this levels I have tended to find blocking bets have a lower "utility" (success rate) than live against experienced players as a lot of your foes won't see it as a block and will often see it as a weak bet and mis-read it and try and push you off.

or to get some value out of a filthy hand... or I would just check and call/fold depending on their bet-size. If they aren't very good, checking is more superior to the weak-lead, if they are pretty competent, weak-lead is superior to the check. IMO

Good post. I'd probably check call here 8 out of ten times.

[kinboshi]

I think I'd do the same, but I always wonder if it's obvious what I've got - as I'm sure I'd play the full house differently, and so isn't it a sign to the other player as to what I've got?

I guess I just have to mix up the play I make when I have the full house (with that board) so they're not sure.  Do you make the smaller value bet with the full house most of the time here?

[byronkincaid]

I check called his pot sized bet. He had 56 for the boat.

[Sheriff Fatman]

I think you lost the minimum from a 'cooler' hand there.  I don't think either player does much wrong.  I also think you occasionally catch bluffs there in that situation.

Leading out also has benefits but on this particular hand you would have lost more as I don't think a re-raise will mean you are beat 100% of the time, so you probably have to call most bets.  It looks here like he'd have raised a small amount rather than a blatant all-in so you'd most likely have had to make a crying call.

[SupaMonkey]

If i were him in this situation, i would have bet $150 on the end there.