7 replies to this topic

[trystero]

another hand I played a while back, no real reads on villain except that he's been fairly aggro preflop over like 35 hands. overall he didn't seem very good, just my sense from looking at some of his hands at showdown Hero is dealt [ 9 :club: 9 :spade: ]Hero raises to $1 (really 0.85 but w/e)2 foldsVillain calls $12 foldsFlop [ 4 :heart: 4 :spade: 7 :heart: ]($2.35)Hero bets $1.80Villain calls $1.80Turn [ 4 :heart: 4 :spade: 7 :heart: ] [ J :heart: ]($5.95)Hero bets $3.50Villain calls $3.50River [ 4 :heart: 4 :spade: 7 :heart: ] [ J :heart: ] [ 3 :club: ]($12.95)Hero bets $7 (folds to a raise)

[SwolyswoND]

So we're getting value from 55/66/A7/88. My default is usually c/c the river here but upon further review there aren't many draws villain can have with to bluff on the river. 56 got there, flush got there...seems very good, actually.

[Temporary Nuts]

Freaking, I don't know how to play these. Your bet seems more like a blocker bet than anything, but thinking about it this seems fine because C-Cing is so gross since his draw range hit on the turn.I usually shut these types of hands down on the turn, and actually tend to give more action on turn bets (since most are trying to take away the pot here, then shut down on river when we didn't go away) than I do a combo of turn check behind - river bet. Probably a leak on my part.

[A_Bullets_A]

I like that bet a lot. If we are ahead, we can get paid $7 instead of making nothing when we both check and if we're behind I think we save money too. When he raises it's an easy fold and we lose $7. If he has us beat and calls, we still lose $7. If we're gonna check/call then I think we lose more when we're beat because he might bet $8-$10 so we save a bit by betting only $7.The only way this isn't correct is if we're playing against someone so tight that they'll never call with worse hands and will only bet stronger hands(then we'd have to check/fold), but we can't know that yet in 35 hands. I think betting $7 is perfect.

[tskillz187]

I'd c/f that river as my standard. It's very thin for value against someone without any decent reads, like he'd hafta be pretty terrible. He literally has no hands that are behind you on the river if we check and he bets. We can't give him credit for being bad enough to value bet a 7 here or good enough to turn a 7 into a bluff. I can't just hope he's bad enough to call with a 7 here w/o reads either.

[Dubey]

I'm not sure I like betting the turn here if we are check/folding the river...

[mtdesmoines]

Dubey, on Monday, July 6th, 2009, 4:04 PM, said:

I'm not sure I like betting the turn here if we are check/folding the river...

True, if we're value betting the turn, not a whole lot has changed at the river. However, I think we'd have to be pretty tunnel-visioned as a villain to call with worse.I think this hand depends on hero's image as much as anything.

[Dubey]

mtdesmoines, on Monday, July 6th, 2009, 1:33 PM, said:

True, if we're value betting the turn, not a whole lot has changed at the river. However, I think we'd have to be pretty tunnel-visioned as a villain to call with worse.I think this hand depends on hero's image as much as anything.

thinking about this a little more, I think I either check/fold or check/call the turn depending on the villain.If we bet the turn, it isn't for value against most opponents. It isn't as a bluff, unless villain has precisely TT with no heart. It isn't to charge a flush draw since the heart came, unless villain has 7x Xh. there isn't a whole lot of value in betting the turn. If the turn checks through, then I think a thin river value bet like this works better as we are more likely to get snapped off by a naked 7.