|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 8/30/2008 9:10:55 AM PACIFIC |
 Hand question, Schuster, 7. Apr 2003 13:53 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I'm on the button with Js9s in a shorthanded, low limit, loose passive game. UTG calls, guy behind me calls, I call, and both the blinds call and we take the flop 5 handed. Only one player folded. The flop is Jh 9h 3h. It's checked around to me and I bet out. The small blind calls, and the rest fold. Next card is Ah for the 4 flush on board and he checks to me. I checked along behind him. This is what I figure might have been the mistake. River is a blank, he bets into me, and I let him have it. I was thinking about the hand, and here's what I figured. Had I bet the turn, one of two things happen. He raises me and I fold. I lose one more big bet that I did. He calls me and likely checks to me on the next round, in which case I show it down for free. I lose one more big bet, but it's possible to take the whole pot. If he calls and bets into me next round, I probably have to let it go, in which case I lost one more big bet than I would have. At the turn, there were 3.5 big bets in the pot. What do you think? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hand question, stdioh, 7. Apr 2003 14:11 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think that you played the hand just fine up to the river. Now once you are there, any heart beats you, but that doesn't mean that he has a heart. This is probably the most common place for a river bluff, so you have to be warry. It is probably worth calling here and paying him off (unless he is a player that you know just wouldn't bluff there ever) because if you're right only a small portion of the time, you save money. If you're 80% sure that he is on a heart, you should make the call. A catastrophic fold can hurt you an aweful lot. Now it is true that your 2 pair means nothing against the smallest flush, but it does mean that you can beat a bluff. Another approach might be to raise the river. I know that this is risky and you really need to know your opponent to do it, but what it means is that not only will you take the pot against a bluff, but you can likely push him off of his baby flush. Depends on many factors of the read, but a lot of players will be a flush with a tiny card, but fold to a raise. Now you are risking 2 bets here instead of the 1, so you need to be fairly certain that you can fold him off a small heart, but if you can you are making a killing. Few players hold the rebluff in their arsenal of river moves and occasionally it can pay off really well. Incidentally, today I had a crapulent thing happen to me on a UB freeroll satelite to play for a WSOP seat. I had Ah3d on the big blind and saw a free flop which was JhXh3h (the X was something like a 7). I checked and a player made a minimum bet which had one caller - I called. Turn card is Jd. Again I check, again a minimum bet and a call so I call. River is my money card, 9h. I decide that there isn't enough money in the pot to take it now, so I'll try a checkraise, but the bettor checks too and the caller overbets the pot. Great - he's either on a worse heart than me or he is trying to buy it. I raise all in and get called only to see my opponents J9! Running tight and they guy was so bad I couldn't beat him. How he didn't bet his top pair into the suited board I won't know. How he didn't bet his trips into the suited board is beyond me. And him hitting the big payoff card - BLEAH! But thems the breaks. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hand question, stein, 8. Apr 2003 10:00 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I agree that the hand was played close to optimally. I have just one point to add. I accept the check on fourth street was correct, especially as betting only to fold to a raise wastes your full house draw. However, I don't believe a raise on the end, with the vast majority of opponents, can be a +EV play. The check on fourth street is simply too suspicious; the river raise probably being a classically obvious 'bigger bluff' to strong opponents. With a small heart, the weak ones won't know any better - so they call; and the strong ones will - so they call. This combined with the low probability that the heart is small (considering general propensity for reasonable pre-flop play) and the favouable pot odds the opponent will have (approx. 6 - 1), leads me to this conclusion. Still, I haven't always been right in the past. Stein | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hand question, stdioh, 8. Apr 2003 10:10 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think that your analysis is good and this is more or less an unarguable topic. It depends a huge amount on read, texture, knowledge of the opponent, etc. Nonetheless, I like your analysis. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hand question, Andrew Wells, 8. Apr 2003 10:12 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| It is usually correct to check the second nut flush with a completely suited board on the turn after showing strength on the flop so you can induce such river bluffs. If you have been seen doing this (especially the current session) then a river raise with two pair against an aware but not too savvy opponent has a decent chance of working. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hand question, Piers Majestyk, 8. Apr 2003 10:52 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think you played it right. I don't believe the guy would have called your flop bet with 3 players yet to act behind him without a heart. If he had something like a set, two pair or AJ he would have probably raised there trying to reduce the odds of others drawing to the flush (at least that is what I would have done). I simply can't put him on another hand other than one with a medium to high heart or perhaps AJ. You gave yourself a chance to fill up without losing a big bet. If you do fill up he is likely to bet his flush anyway and you can make up that bet with a raise on the river. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hand question, shorn, 8. Apr 2003 11:25 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I agree with you Piers. I do not think that you should call the river for the plain fact that he is in the small blind and only had to call a fraction of a bet, so there is no telling what he would have. I don't know too many normal players that will bluff the river without a hand. Likely, he has a decent heart and was trying to checkraise the turn. Plus, the pot here was small (4.5 BB), so I would give it up on the river if I didn't fill (unless you know this guy to be aggressive and that he would bluff at this pot). Maybe I am leaving too much on the table by mucking here, but I don't think the odds are there to make calling the river a +EV play. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Hand question, stdioh, 8. Apr 2003 13:40 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Well, here's the definitive be all and end all. There are 3.5 big bets already in the pot, plus his one big bet making it 4.5 you stand to gain versus 1 you stand to lose. If you are 22% sure that he is bluffing or more, then call. Otherwise fold. Period. Now how you arive at that degree of certainty is left as an excercise to the reader :) | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network |
|