|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 12/1/2008 5:56:02 PM PACIFIC |
 A check on the river leads to disaster, Mark Gregorich, 28. Aug 2003 23:55 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I'm playing in a pretty good weekday afternoon $30-60 hold'em game at Bellagio when this hand occurred: An extremely loose, passive, weak playing player limps in UTG (nothing new here, he has been limping with just about everything) Everyone folds to me. I'm next to the button, and I raise with A2 of clubs (maybe this is my omaha instinct acting up here). Actually, I make this play for a few reasons: a-the big blind is tight and respects my play, so I think she'll fold b-I figure to have the limper beat c-I've been running very good this session, so I think the limper and any other callers may concede the pot prematurely if we all miss the flop, since they'll expect me to hit gin again Unfortunately, everyone who can call does call. The button is an unpredictable tourist, and the small blind is a good local player who does tend to defend his blinds more than most good players. So, five of us see a flop that I like: AQT with the QT of clubs. I don't think I have the best hand at this point, but I know I'm drawing pretty good. Its checked to me, I bet, and the SB checkraises me. Everyone else folds, and I call. My read on the SB is that he either has just a pair of aces, or he flopped two pair. I thought he would probably lead out with KJ, as he wouldn't want to shut out the initial limper, who likes to make bad calls for one bet. The turn card was another ten. The SB bet, and I called. I actually thought about raising here, feeling that it was possible we held the same hand at this point, and I had the flush redraw on him. The river card was a jack, making the board AQTTJ. The SB now checks. I bet out without hesitation, feeling we were probably chopping if he called, but knowing he would have a very tough call with this board (his perception of me also made it tougher for him to call). Well, he turned over AQ and flung it into the muck, after contemplating about it for ten seconds or so. So, his check on the river turned out to not only cost him $60 (I would have called had he bet, given the size of the pot and the decent possibility we were splitting), but the entire pot! Quite a coup for me. I'm not sure that checking here is such a bad play. After all, the jack does look like an ugly card, and AK is a fairly likely holding for me. However, I dont think you can check here with the intention of folding if your opponent bets. There are simply too many hands I might bet in this situation, when its checked to me. Sure, I may just check down an ace, and I'm assuming that's how my opponent felt. However, when its checked to me I would bet AJ for value, and based on how the hand went down (I would have played AK or AJ the same way up to that point) I was only 8:6 more likely to hold AK than AJ (8 combos of AK available, 6 of AJ). If my opponent felt those were my two most likely hands, he should definitely call, considering he was only an 8:6 underdog. I think once he checked to me, he definitely should have done so with the intention of calling. So, checking and folding was a mistake. What about betting out? Well, there are some hands I would have paid off with but may not have bet myelf (Ax), so he figures to lose that bet by checking a high percentage of the time (not in this hand, though, since I bet my Ax). If I held AJ, nothing should change - either he bets and I call, or he checks, I bet, and he calls. If I hold AK or KQ, I may raise if he bets. However, I would tend to generally just call his bet with a straight here, because he may have a full house with the high paired board that was present, plus the high likelihood he wouldn't pay off my hand for a raise. So, either way, he only loses one bet if I make a straight (he checks and calls, or he bets and I call or raise). If I have a full house, I will certainly raise the river, and he can muck his hand (I know I'm temporarily overlooking the slim possibility of a bluff raise on the river). So, as I see it: in situations in which I make a straight or a full house, the SB should lose one bet whether he bets out or checks and calls if I have AJ, he will win one bet from me on the river either way if I have Ax, he will win a bet by betting out that he probably won't win by checking, as I am likely to check behind him Plus - the temptation to save a bet when Mark the Cardrack bets after its checked to him doesn't enter into play Thats why I think sometimes its necessary to suck it up and bet the river, even when the board gets scary - you don't have to be right every time! Mark | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A check on the river leads to disaster, 4 POKER, 29. Aug 2003 00:22 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| You don't even need to worry about the river card.........all you have to *do* is bet and they're throwing their hands away........sheesh!! First the guy who folds off his flush to you in a huge pot, and now this? I sure hope you bluff alot too! (LOL)!!! good post/good analysis. 4P- | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A check on the river leads to disaster, Phish, 29. Aug 2003 09:19 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| It wasn't the check that was the disaster. It was the fold. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A check on the river leads to disaster, noiseboy, 29. Aug 2003 10:22 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| That seems like a pretty bad fold with the pot that large. Checking isn't bad, but I think when the pot gets big you have to call much more liberally. I think checking is better than betting because if you get raised you are probably folding when what you really want is to just show down. I think the bet at the end on your part was a really good read and a good illustration of how aggression can win you pots you are not *supposed* to win. Good play. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A check on the river leads to disaster, mkpoker, 29. Aug 2003 10:40 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Some book I read once (Ken Howard, I think) said, effectively, when in LP and deciding whether to call a bet on the river, you can make one of two mistakes (in this context, "mistake" means "way to lose" not a mistake in the way you play your hand): 1. A mistake that will cost you a single BB (when you call and lose); or 2. A mistake that will cost you the entire pot (when you muck but would have won). I can think of no better hand that illustrates the point better than this one. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A check on the river leads to disaster, stdioh, 29. Aug 2003 15:33 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Just remember that if you are terrified of ever losing the whole pot when you are the winner, you're going to lose 1 BB so many times over and over and over that it'll be worse for you in the long run. When I fold a winner I always punch myself mentally, but I generally lean one way on small pots and the other on big pots and I think it holds me in good stead. I figure that as long as I take down more chips on bluffs than I fold off to bluffs and as long as I call with losers less than others call me with their losers, I'll be just fine. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: A check on the river leads to disaster, stdioh, 29. Aug 2003 15:31 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| If I'm holding top pair, no kicker, with a flush draw and I get checkraised, I usually like to 3-bet. My reasoning is that if I make my flush the guy is liable to say, "There's no way he'd be three betting me on a flush draw" ... I can also get more information from his when he either calls or 4-bets. If he calls then I'll figure to be good if I hit my deuce (or whatever non kicker I have), but if he keeps going I can peg him for at least 2 pair if not a set and I can play cautiously if I hit 2 pair. Oftentimes, I find that when you 3-bet a flop against a good player who checkraised and respects you, he'll automatically put you on top 2 pair or a set and play scared. If he just calls there I'll bet the turn nomatter what it is and hope to fold him off even an AK ... and any turn there really fives me either a great made hand or a perfect position for semibluffing. Anyhow, I'm just saying that calling the checkraise might make it apparent you're holding a flush draw with a pair or a flushdraw with a gutshot. | ||
| 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 |
|