Checking the best hand on the river

Let's say you have a drawing hand, like ace/five of spades with two spades on the flop. One of your opponents bets enough to give you the odds to call so you do. The turn gives you top pair (an ace, but remember your kicker is a five). You opponent bets again and you call. You hit the nut flush on the river and are first to act.

My question here is do you make a value bet and hope to get paid? Or do you check your best hand in hopes that your opponent will bet it for you, giving you the opportunity to check raise?

Guess it depends on your read on your opponent. Is she a gung-ho style aggressive player and not likely to be scared off by the flush possibility? If so, she's ripe for a check trap and you want to let her get more chips into the pot.

A value bet here could be right though if your opponent has shown a tendency to back off any scary boards. She might see the cold calling the flop and turn as you chasing a straight or flush and will be hesitant to bet into you. So get the money in and hope she pays you off.

put your opponent on a range given how the hand played out. figure out what they probably think you have. decide if they're likely to bet that range if checked to/call if bet into. then act accordingly

I love the river check, if I have it. makes em think you were drawing and missed. A lot of that is dependent on how you played early, and how opponent was playing. Most effective when I have been betting, and he/she has been calling only. Then they see their shot to steal.

They definately need to give me odds to call because if it was a pot bet then me calling 2:1 on a 37% would be wrong. Then if my opponent again bet on 2:1 especially if they were holding a set, playing superstitious in hopes of hitting would be wrong.

Yet your question of checking the river while holding the nuts, well a value bet would be your best option. Checking the river may cause a player to check anyway no matter what style of player they may or may not be.

I did this a couple of weeks ago at a home game. I was on the big blind and flopped two pair. River was a Jack and I was sure I had the best hand. The guy I was heads-up against can be very aggressive and likes to go all-in when he believes his opponent can't call. So I checked the river, he went all-in (as expected), and I quickly called and my two pair beat his single pair

again it depends on ur opponents style of play.if it is someone who is hyperggresive and u have SEEN him making big bet bluffs on the river it is best u check into his bet.if he is super tight it is best if u value bet oods are the tight player will check the river because of u pattern on play[check flop with 2 clubs on board and just calling the turn obv to me u have a flush] if it is a player who is not tight nor agressive it is best u bet something like 5/8s of the pot assuming they are not bluffingand they have a decent pair or whatever

I can't really see why you wouldn't bet it on the river. Isn't the main reason for betting is when you have the best(or think you do)? The real question is "Do I bet big or make a value bet?"

what were the two flop cards? is there a possible straight flush from your opponent?

I don't think there is an answer to this question because it depends on both your opponent and your image at the table.

Against aggressive opponents and habitual bluffers, it may be better to check. That way they can represent the flush themselves if they are bluffing, or "value" bet their pairs(which a goold player would not do in this situation).

If you are against a very good player, a small value bet may be best, since they will check most hands behind, but may still call a small bet. This has the added advantage that you could later bluff that opponent inexpensively by representing a flush with a small bet on the river. Also note, that check-calling OOP the flop and turn means either a strong draw, a monster hand, or a donk. If a good player perceives you as a good player, he/she will know they are likely beat.

Against a loose passive player(calling station), betting is definitly best. I would bet as much as I think they will call based on prior observations.

Against a maniac, checking is definitely best since they will either overplay their pairs, or bet big/all-in to bluff you out of the pot.

Let me note that a flush is very obvious in this situation. Had it been a non-obvious str8, checking may be correct even against good players since they are likely to value bet their good and marginal hands.

I would still bet against a calling station, though. When you have a money tree in your back yard, you don't let your neighbors pick the fruits.

Finally, let's say that you have 2 opponents, and let's say for the sake of simplicity that one is a calling station(CS) and the other is a maniac(M). You are OOP with respect to both players.

If the order of betting is You, M, CS, then you should check. Maniac bets, CS overcalls, now you can re-raise(perhaps min-reraise), M will at least call or move in. If M calls, CS is bound to call. If M moves-in, CS may fold, but you still got some of CS's money from the first call. If you bet instead of checking, and M moves in, CS may fold.

If the order of betting is You, CS, M, then I think it is better to bet what CS will call. M can then either overcall, or re-raise. You can now min-re-raise sandwitching CS between You and M. If you were to check, CS is likely to check behind, and when M bets, if you just call, you close the action. If you re-raise, CS may fold.

there is a general answer.

you bet.

at this point, because of your check-call check-call pattern, your opponent is probably scarred about the flush. so if you check, they probably won't risk more money (unless they can beat you) and instead choose to show it down. so you won't give yourself a chance to gain an extra bet, and he will probably see your hand in the end.

in situations like this, i've come to realize, check-call-check-call-check-raise is really not an option.

if you bet, you are probably still not going to get much more money BUT there are three upsides to betting:

1.) Either they call, and you get money or they fold and have to guess as to waht you had. If they folded, they won't know for sure if you check-called-check-called with a flush draw, or if you were in it to steal it from the beginning

2.) If you can possibly try and represent that you were in it to steal it from the beginning, and he falls for it, you may get an extra bet.

3.) on the off chance your opponent has a flush (or a hand they can't get away from), you still are not pushing them out (usually). If they would have bet (with a good hand), had you checked, than there is a good chance, on the river, they will call your bet, or raise you.

Lead out with a smallish bet, 1/3 to 1/2 the pot, once you've determined that no straight flush/full house possibilities exist. Sort of invite villain, who may have top 2 pair or a set, or samller flush, to pay off.

U really can't check the river in this case, because, all u did up untill that river was call, so really best choice would be to throw a bet in, maybe a bet the misleads, the other person into thinking u might have a weak flush, or u were never on the flush draw, but rather a straight draw, that never came, and therefore the other (might) reraise, into representing ur hand, and therefore=GAMEOVER.

A value bet here could be right though if your opponent has shown a tendency to back off any scary boards. She might see the cold calling the flop and turn as you chasing a straight or flush and will be hesitant to bet into you. So get the money in and hope she pays you off.