|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 3/16/2010 10:05:06 PM PACIFIC |
 Betting or Checking the River, psuasskicker, 25. May 2003 21:29 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Glazer wrote in a Card Player article a few months back about checking on the river when you know that you'll only get called if you're beaten. I'm curious how extreme such a concept should be in this case. I have two example hands that were recently played in a pot limit home game I played in last week. Example 1: Limper in an early position with KK and the pot goes around unraised. Flop is Q88. Big blind bets $5 into a $10 pot, KK raise to $20 to test if the 8 is out there. All fold but the blind calls. Turn is a third 8, blind checks, limper bets $50, and after much deliberation the blind calls and it appears he has a Q but may have QQ or the fourth 8. River is a blank and blind checks. Do you bet here or check it down? Example 2: Not as clear an example. Early position raiser who raises just a little bit. Gets two callers to the button which you're on with A6 suited. Mixing play you decide to limp for the small raise and see what the flop comes with enough players in to be okay. Flop comes A65 rainbow, checks to the raiser who bets small, folds to the button with top two pair who raises a solid chunk. Folds to the better who calls, who you make on AK but may have something else. Turn is a 4, river a J, and the early player checks and calls the bet on the turn and checks the river. Should you bet here or check it down? These are legit questions I'm looking for answers on... In example 1, the KK went all in, got called by the Q who played the hand terribly and won a huge pot. I thought this was a good example of a hand where he should have checked as the KK could get beaten by a lot, especially since the big blind got the chance to limp and could have the 8 and slowplayed. In example 2, the A6 bet $50, and got called by pocket Aces where he played the hand poorly thinking the A6 had drawn the belly-buster straight. This is a real issue for me cause I'm not really sure whether a check or bet in this situation was correct. The bettor and most at the table put the caller on AK, not rockets, which indicates to me that a bet would be okay, hoping to get called in such a case. The real question I have is, where is that cut-off point where it's okay to bet the river vs. checking it down? In Glazer's example, he talked about a J10 limper where he flopped J rag rag, and KQ came on the turn and river. There's a big difference between middle pair checking it down and top and middle two pair checking it down. Thanks for any insight/thoughts. Chris | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Betting or Checking the River, Andrew Wells, 26. May 2003 03:26 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Both cases I would check the river here in big bet hold'em. If this was limit, I would expect to reasonably get called by a worse hand enough to make the last bet. I think these are excellent examples of the concept involved as applied to pot limit. I think it boils down to your read on a single opponent, and your experience with how well he plays. In both example hands I don't want to be in a situation where I'm checkraised over the top, so if I think that is possible I would almost always check. Maybe make a small bet against a weak player but nothing approaching half pot size. There really is no line to draw here, but consider that if an opponent goes all the way to the river when you have much less than the nuts but still a legitimate hand, you are seldom giving up value if you just showdown. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Betting or Checking the River, stdioh, 26. May 2003 09:12 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| It all depends on the opponent. I will have bet for value with second pair against an opponent who would pay me off with any pair. By the same token, I've checked down the river with third nut hand against a total rock many a time. If you're playing no limit you can often suck a little extra money with a small river bet. This is very effective advanced tournament heads up strategy. For instance, lets say that you hit your hand and bet the flop, your opponent chases, you bet the turn and he chases, and you are convinced that he is probably on a busted draw. You've got top pair with an ok kicker. Now you're worried that you might just possibly be beat and that he's been sandbagging it. I like to make a small bet on the river. If he checkraises me giantly, I have to be willing to release and if a player loves to checkraise, I'll refrain from making the move, but oftentimes the player who has hit one weak pair will call you down to keep you honest. The number of times you'll get called by ace high makes up for a lot. If you're getting checkraised and the guy isn't making an advanced bluff, then you're losing anyway, and the additional bit of bet isn't worth that much. But I guess the long and short of it is, "Never bet a river if the only hands that can call you can beat you," is true, but the set of hands that can call you change depending on the opponents you are up against. | ||
| 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 | Find Vancouver Businesses |
|