$2/4 on UB


No read, just starting a 2hour session.


Hero is in the BB with

Folds to villain in MP2 who limps. Sb completes, hero checks.

Flop

Sb checks, Hero checks, MP2 checks.

Turn

Sb checks. Hero bets $4. Villain calls $4. Sb folds.

River

Hero's line is c/c. Thoughts?

I think I prefer bet/fold in a smaller pot. I may be wrong though. It's just that his range is a lot bigger than a flush or two pair, so I think he'd call us down with a lot more than he'd bet with (unless we have an autobet read on him), especially since we haven't shown to be overly strong in this hand.

i think i too c/c in this spot.
anyone prefer a bet? if so please tell me why

I do. The pot is likely to be bet if the villian has flopped a flush draw, in position. It's unlikely he has anything that can beat us, except maybe KTo or K9, but given the way the pot was played, he's apt to call with middle/bottom pair, yet unlikely to bet with it.

I bet this river. His range is incredibly wide. A flush is very unlikely since he didn't bet flop. A better king is pretty unlikely since he has played this hand so passively. I think we are ahead about 75% of the time on this river. Can we really put him on QJ or KQ? I don't think so. He probably has QT or A6 or some other crappy hand. There's a decent chance he just paired his Q and will pay off a river bet.

I call a raise, btw. Even though the board is kinda ugly for our hand. I would be very suspicious if he suddenly decided to be aggressive. It would be such a confusing raise that I would call it even though we are often beat. It would be good information either way.

I love you guys. I put this on 2 + 2 prior because this board was done, and you couldn't believe how many regulars there got caught up on something before we get to the river. I kept hearing "Bet the flop!" Lol.

The river play is CLEARLY the question in this hand. I never shy away from value bets, but because we have a villain that is obviously loose-passive (open-limping from MP2), I got the heebies about the heart and the possibility of the river raise, which I think comes often when somebody hits a flop huge but chooses to slowplay in position. I really wanted to know what the villain had for future reference, and I felt like I was never gaining more than 1 bet but risking 2 if I led.

Bet/call. A flush draw's betting the flop about 98% of the time here, and something like AT's the only thing I'd even be worried about. AQ, a small pair, A-x, and a club draw are all more likely than hearts though.

I agree with the guys from 2+2 that the flop seems like a decent time to pick up a pot, but then again im starting to think I take too many stabs at pots that noone has shown much interest in.

I also bet the river.

Ugh, I never do this.

In the games I play, even on AP, players call the flops so light, that we'd need to continue a bet on the turn in order to pick up the pot, and I'm not investing 1.5 BB here with King high, only 1 over, and no draw.

I like it. Flush draw is certainly a possible hand, if not we might induce a bluff by checking. We lose the least when we're behind and often win more than we would by betting out if we're ahead.

*edit*
Betting the flop here is a leak IMO. Maybe if it was all rags and rainbow we could get away with it, but that flop is too draw heavy for my liking to take a stab at.

You really think we win more by checking and calling- with a top pair made on the turn- than we will by betting? This seems pretty bad to me. Flush draws must be discounted, given the fact that most would fire inposition on the flop.

When villian calls the K turn, it seems like he's "looking us up" more than he's "running us down." Just value bet the K8 here. It's not even that close, I don't think.

Someone convince me of otherwise.

Wang

What does he call us with that we're ahead of? How often do we get raised? How do we handle that raise?

P.S. I'm a bit of a river wuss, it's one of my weaknesses.

I probably bet this flop without a read. Make the flop J92 instead of J62, and I'd probably check.

But, as to the river, it's interesting. Hard to put villain on a hand; he checked the flop, then called the turn getting 2.5-1. Without a read, it seems his most likely hand is either a K or a strong hand that he slowplayed. If he's thinking about our hand, he's likely got us on either a K or a bluff (or possibly a strong hand that we sandbagged on the flop). He almost certainly doesn't have a flush (I think very few players check a flush draw on that flop), and he should realize that we don't have one either.

I think this river is a very close decision. Given his open-limp preflop, I doubt he is a very strong player, and I think it's unlikely that we get raised by a worse hand than ours. But, he also is unlikely to bluff at the river; he may or may not bet top pair if checked to.

I'm leaning toward bet/fold. I think he almost never raises the river with a worse hand and I think he will sometimes check behind a weak hand (K-rag, QT, even A-high) that he might have called a bet with.

In general...

The typical bad reason to check-call any river is that it allows Villain to value bet the hands that beat us while checking down the hands that are behind.

This is a very bad situation for us.
But there is a counter to this conecpt that evens things out.

The typical good reason to check-call any river is that it allows Villain to bluff when he normally would have folded if we had bet.



Let's analyze the good part of that equation in regards to this specific hand.
What could Villain have called us with on the turn that he would bluff with on the river?
He could have a smaller pair. But he won't bet the river.
He could have been on a Flush draw. But it got there.
The only hands he could have that were drawing, did not pass us up, and that he could bluff with would be Straight draws.
But with the pot being this small, he would not have had proper odds to call the bet on the turn with just a Straight draw. So we may be able to rule out these hands as well.

So in conclusion, I can not put Villain on any hand that was good enough to call the turn but bad enough that he will bluff the river with.
Given this fact, check-calling the river must be bad.
Because according to the theory above, when the chances of picking up a bluff are minimal, only the bad parts of check-calling remain.

I bet this river.


--CM

Coran, I like your explanation on the c/c line on the river being bad quite often.

What I'm missing most from this hand is a good read on the villain. The only thing to go by is that he open-limped from MP.

Assume he was a thinking player with 22 and wanted to play a big pot with it so he limped, hoping to induce those behind him to play too.

What is MY hand range to him, given my actions: Check preflop, check flop, bet turn, check river.

Could he put me on a K often enough here to check behind with a pair he made on the flop? What if he somehow spiked a Q?

Restating the question: What could a general strategy be to induce a villain to value-bet?

I suppose that Villain may view your range as being anything from a weak King down to absolutely nothing and that your turn bet was a steal attempt.

Yes, he may have a monster and have us crsuhed.
And this is why I would very likely fold to any river raise.
If I don't think he would be bluffing a passive river, I certainly don't think he will be bluff-raising the river.

If we are behind, we are only losing 1 bet either way.
But when ahead, I feel that we gain 1 bet much more often by betting out than check-calling.


--CM

Do you think that: losing 1 bb that we might gain from value-betting with a better hand > maybe gaining 1bb from a value/bluff bet from the villain's worse hand AND the info from seeing what he had?

Significantly better, in my opinion.

I would never sacrafice EV just to find out what Villain had in this little pot.
The info is not incredibly helpful.
I will have plenty of other chances to take notes on him.

--cm

Guys, checking this river is incredibly bad, for myriad reasons. Trust me when I say that villains make many more mistakes when you bet than when you check. Checking induces more correct action (checking back when he's behind) than betting does. There's really no reason to think we're losing here, so just give him a chance to make a mistake. He seems not-unlikely to payoff given all the action.

Wang

right. and you used myriad correctly. double points.