ITH Poker Forum

[nsidestrate]

This is a hand that we had a discussion about a few years ago and your writing was cited to support a particular action on the river in this hand. I'm curious to hear your reaction "straight from the horse's mouth"

Poker Stars 30/60 Hold'em (8 handed)

Preflop: Hero is SB with , .
3 folds, MP2 calls, 2 folds, Hero completes, BB checks.

Open limping from MP2 is nearly always a sign of a poor player.

Flop: (3 SB) , , (3 players)
Hero checks, BB checks, MP2 bets, Hero raises, BB folds, MP2 calls.

Betting would also be reasonable, but I prefer the check-raise here.

Turn: (3.50 BB) (2 players)
Hero bets, MP2 calls.

I think that betting here is pretty much mandatory.

River: (5.50 BB) (2 players)

Should I check or bet?

[pokerbear]

Hi. Difficult hand. I am going to end up betting, but the logic is tough. First, as you know, I am perhaps the World's Greatest Advocate for Betting the River. I believe more money is lost by average players by failing to bet the river than any other reason (except maybe playing too many hands).

But every situation is different. When all the analysis is done (and I assume it was), then the problem devolves into one of position. If you check and the enemy has Q-J, he will bet, you will call, and you will lose a a bet. So the question is: Will he bet more hands that I can beat than he will call with, or will be bluff more hands (such as J-10)? He seems pretty passive, so absent any other info, i will not try for a bluff. If we take that out, I expect he will call with more losers (say, 8- 8 ) than he will bet. So I bet, but I will not be surprised to lose the majority of the time I do so. It's just that I am calling anyway, so I bet. If you could make a case for check-calling I can't without more info), the analysis would change.

[nsidestrate]

I was also an advocate for betting here, although there were some persuasive arguments for check-calling. It basically boiled down to how often you were against a smaller pocket pair compared to how often you were against a busted straight draw.

For those who enjoy a walk down memory lane, the original post can be found here. In my opinion, Icall had it exactly right in the original post and this was one of rare times I disagreed with Pilchard.

[jeffnc]

For some reason, a Q with lower kicker isn't mentioned (in this thread per se.)

The main problem with hands like these is how to deal with river raises, which is a difficult problem, especially when the pot is big. This includes weak players who think they "have it" because they have a Q and think you don't even have that. Some of these players think you might be value betting with something less than a pair of queens here, and some other weak players recognize that betting here with anything less than queens w/ good kicker is basically a bluff but think the way to deal with a potential bluffer is to raise him on the river. (You see this more with aces than queens - a lot of times when some players pair the ace on the board, they think it's a game of who "has it" and who doesn't.)

So it's hard to judge river raises from both good players and bad players alike. Good players can make you lay your hand down with a well-timed bluff, and weak players are so confused about poker concepts that you can't even figure out what their raise represents to them, let alone what it's supposed to represent to you. The only players you don't have to worry about are passive calling stations.

In this hand the only clue we had was that the opponent limped first in MP2, which probably means he's passive and we can respect his river raise. That's not really a big clue to go on, but now we're talking more generally than just this one hand. example.

Anyway, I suspect the reason Barry sees so many mistakes failing to bet the river is not because players don't understand everything Barry mentioned in his reply above, but because they don't want to deal with raises here. So I think that's the more interesting thing to talk about.

[pokerbear]

Hi. First, your suspicion is correct. Players are truly paranoid about river raises and check-raises, and prefer not to deal with them.. the easiest way to do that is to check. But that gives up so much equity it is amazing.

OK, about the hand again. In general, his holding queen with a worse kicker is a non-issue because if we bet, he will call and it we check, we lose a bet or get it back. It is rare to see Q-5 in this sequence, but of course, anything is possible.

About the river raise on this hand. What will he raise with? About the only thing is a nine that he has been slow-playing. But at least 99 players out of 100 will raise the turn with that hand, fearing that you will check the river because you are afraid o a raise, or were on a draw, or whatever. So I tend to discount the possibility of a raise on this hand//situation.

Of course, it CAN happen. Fine. In general I will call it, fully expecting to lose. But I do not make lay downs to weak players (as evidence so far suggests) on the river. You just never know what they are thinking.

It is always silly analyzing a hand in a vacuum. At the table. we will have some idea about this player from the previous hands. Any previous clues, no matter how small, will factor into a decision.

[Willem]

I am always betting this river. He will call with many worse Qx as well as pocket pairs. You don't want to get into a negative freeroll situation where you allow villain to bet all better hands and check behind all worse ones. Better to bet yourself and collect a bet from the worse hands also. You might be able to induce a bluff by checking but:
1) He is not guaranteed to bluff.
2) He may still bluff if you bet. (You then need to call the raise here obviously.)

Dealing with a raise is actually quite easy as villain either has 44 or a busted draw, with a busted draw being statistically much more likely. You definitely have overlay here getting over 1:8. I think a call is mandatory.

(Disclaimer, I never play in full games. Mostly HU and some 6-max)

Btw, welcome to ITH Barry.

[mchilger]

Barry wrote up this hand in Cardplayer

http://www.cardplayer.com/author/article/all/124/12386

Matthew