The river check/call. Important limit hold'em tactic

This particular example was from a 6-max table, which accentuates it, but the principle is the same even at a full table:

I have 10-8o in the big blind. Very loose and somewhat passive player limps from MP, and hyperaggressive player raises from the button. I call. Loose player calls.

Flop comes 10-5-2 rainbow.

I check with the intention of checkraising the button (whom I'm sure will bet). Limper checks. Button bets. I raise. Limper folds. Button calls.

Turn is a 4.

I bet. Button calls.

River is an ace.

I check with the intention of calling a bet.

Why do I do that?

it removes the reraise and you can see his cards for one bet?

Hope I am close

that and your 10 high has equity to call one check-call, but not to bet-call?

You're both on the right track, but need to take the line of thinking a bit further. Come up with some different scenarios.

If you bet, he'll only call (or raise) if he's got a better hand, so it's a waste of a bet.

If you check and he bets, you're more than likely beat but you've got pot odds to call.

Yes and yes!

Now, there's also another possibility that we must not forget: He's hyperaggressive, and he could see my river check as a sign of weakness, and bet with air to try to force me out, in which case I'll gain a bet from a hand that would otherwise have folded if I had bet out myself.

It's possible he'll check behind a hand like K5, that he would have called with, but within his range that he'd raise with preflop (which is big, but not infinite) there are very few hands that he'd call with that I'd beat.

When I'm behind, I save a bet by check/calling. When I'm ahead, I sometimes (maybe even often, depending on the player) manage to convince him to bluff or bet a weaker hand.

You forgot to add in that the Hyper aggresive player could be holding which must be taken into consideration of A,10 A,J, A,Q, A,K Not to mention any high pocket pair from 10's- A's. Then for all you know he could be smooth calling you all the way down with the higher pocket pair.

His holding can be also AX and that X could have been a 10,5, or a 2.
Just because he is hyper aggresive we must know that he knows something about the game.

Since he is Hyper Agressive I would say that you haven't seen many of his hands cause people have been folding to his hands. His range of hands at this point can and will be astronomical at this point in time.Then you are hoping that your weak kicker stands up.

You were beat to start with, why you call with a very marginal hand is behond me even if you know that it may be a steal. Why chance on beating this guy with a marginal hand when you would be much better off having a hand to beat him. By calling his raise, you are falling into his style of play instead of your own style. Then not to mention you become 1st to act and you are way out of position.

Definatly a hand that you shouldn't be in to begin with. However a check/call is your best bet because you don't need to be risking any more money on a marginal hand while yet there is a possibility you still have the best hand going.

If you routinely fold 10-8o in the BB when a very aggressive player tries to isolate the weak limper in 6-max, you're giving up a lot of profit. It's close, but with reads on the other players, it's most definitely +EV to call here.

And a hyperaggressive player does not smoothcall when you play shorthanded.

The fact that I was first to act is not as important as the fact that I had the raiser to my right. I knew Mr. Passive would check to him on the flop, leaving me lots of openings for getting tricky on the flop.

His hand is not A-10. An aggressive player does not call down with TPTK.

"His hand is not A-10. An aggressive player does not call down with TPTK."

exactly. they won't stop betting even if they flop a straight flush.

His hand is not A-10. An aggressive player does not call down with TPTK

He does if #1 you have fired back at him and #2 The Smooth Calling Tactic.
Have you labeled all Hyper Aggresive people as stupid players who also don't know how to play??

A hyper aggresive player probably knows more then 1 strategy in general. Just like any one of us also know more then 1 strategy in general.

Are you really risking to gamble that this is all the guy/gal knows how to do is play any 2 cards aggresively while hoping that those 2 cards are rubbish.
Bad mistake playing a very marginal hand against a loose maniac.

This hand shouldn't be happening in the 1st place against a player of this caliber.

Smooth calling is not viable tactic in shorthanded play. And me firing back at him means I represent exactly what I have: Top pair.

When I say hyper aggressive, what do you think that means in terms of which hands he'll raise from the button in a 6-max game with a lone limper in so far?

Uh. Ok. Whatever he was doing in this hand after I checkraised him, it was no tactic - he was calling down.

Not any two cards. But 30% of them, yes.

No, it's not a bad mistake. It could be argued that it's borderline, but as a general rule of thumb, unless I think my opponent has a very narrow range of raising hands, I do not fold 10-8 out of the big blind when the button raises.

I wholeheartedly disagree. This is exactly the kind of player you want to play this hand against. A timid player is not going to pay you off when he misses the flop.

What range do you put him on here, anyway? Do you think he has anything?

No, he'll have A-10 here virtually never. A-10 with this flop in a shorthanded game against a player who's only represented top pair (or any pair, really) means he would 3-bet the flop (half the time) or raise the turn (the other half).

A player who likes to raise whenever he has something - and a lot of the times when he has nothing - is not a player who smooth calls with a hand like AA on this flop and turn. What's he doing - waiting to pop the river?

Before the river, this player does not have a better hand than me, or we would have heard from him. Even JT would have 3-bet this flop and likely raised the turn.

Protecting your blinds against an aggressive player raising the button is absolutely key in 6-max. I can see an argument for not taking this battle with T-8 preflop, but I absolutely cannot see an argument for not playing this hand postflop when you flop top pair.

This is more of a sidenote in blind protection in shorthanded though - the important street here was the river. The flop and the turn are about as standard as they come regardless opposition, and preflop is absolutely okay against the opponents I was up against. Although not likely, there's even a chance I had the best hand preflop.

I agree with F Paulsson here.
Good explanation.

Actually you are stating the way a hand should play out according to the "rules". But you are making a mistake in assuming that this player will play the way you assume he will. Taking into consideration of what you have, I myself playing a game like that would have love to have someone like you make that play on me.
If the player is hyperaggressive, he would not have called your raise unless he had a better underhand. You just set the pot up for him. Your check/raising the pot will just make it all the sweeter for his win.

What street are you talking about? The flop?

What's an underhand?

Explain your thinking; I don't understand. Do you mean that I'm incorrect in saying that a hyperaggressive player who calls this turn has a worse hand?

Yes I am talking about the first raise on the flop.

The underhand is my own lingo for the hand pre-flop.

I am saying that you are the player here who is making the amature move with the hand you have unless the player you are playing against is a total donk. If this was me and I had anything better than the 10"s I would let you hang yourself.

Wow, I want all you naysayers at my table so I can steal yer blinds and bluff you off hands all day long.

Wow, I want all you naysayers at my table so I can steal yer blinds and bluff you off hands all day long.

Awesome!.. Note: Dorkus is A Hyper Aggresive player.

Yeah, being a calling station is by far the best way to play against overaggro players.

When's yer book coming out twizzy?

(I'd say more, but FP has everything bar sarcastic remarks covered here, so I'll just cover that)

sorry but i agree with fpaul. only hand id fear him having is a-3.

"I am saying that you are the player here who is making the amature move with the hand you have unless the player you are playing against is a total donk. If this was me and I had anything better than the 10"s I would let you hang yourself."

and other times (read: the vast majority) you would call down with a/x k/x hoping to draw and pay him off.

"Do you think he has a better hand than me more than 50% of the time? How many percent of the hands that he'll raise with preflop have me beat on this flop?"

let's see.. what are the odds of hitting your single overcard on the flop? that percentage, minus the variance of when you hit 2p/straight, or when he flops something stupid like 558 with k5 and you with 8/10

i don't know much about limit, but i do know this:

not raising when you know you have the best hand is the biggest mistake you will make.

Smooth calling with A-10 is a horrible tactic here. Absolutely dreadful. He's vulnerable to so many different cards that may come that not raising with such a vulnerable hand is awful.

That said: Someone who smooth calls with marginal hands (a pair of 10s certainly qualifies) is not someone who fits the description "hyper aggressive."

Granted it may not fit the description but it is a viable tactic that has been and used by plenty of hyper aggresive folks. We folks at CC aren't the only ones learning and playing the game as well. Just because someone plays a certain way doesn't mean he/she won't switch in mid-stream. It can/has and does happen.

What? You must not have understood: He raises on average about 30% of his preflop hands. How many of those hands do you think have me beat right now? At least 60-65% of that 30%.

Out of curiousity, presuming you somehow misclicked and called preflop, would you have folded when he bet on the flop? Would you have called? Would you have raised?
Would have folded.. No reason to get in a pissing contest with a marginal hand with a weak kicker. Most I would have is a 20% chance to hit on the turn for either 2 pair or trips. A bet saved is a bet earned for later when the % is in your favor.

Oh, he's paying me off, alright. He called my raise on the flop, he called my bet on the turn, and now I check to him on the river to allow him to try to bluff me out of a pot. A passive player will check behind on this river with garbage. An aggressive player will jump at the sign of perceived weakness and try to steal it. Hence this thread.
Yeah until he does turn over the A,10.. K,10.. Q,10.. High pocket pair and then you look like an amateur cause you didn't take into account every possible strategy/skill he has in his repetoire. Then the assumption that it is indeed a steal will make you look foolish.
Yet it isn't even a steal if he does bet(then it becomes a value bet) and value bets aren't even a steal.

I could have checked the turn, and he would have bet. I could have checkraised him there, but that would have folded him out. Instead, I bet, and planning to check the river to induce a bluff. I can't do this with a passive player (because then betting the river would be better, but they would fold almost any hand that I can beat).
Yes until he re-raised for either the A,10 or any A X card. You can't determine yet if he has A,10 or A X just because he called your re-raise on the flop. Right now again you are betting into him, if he was betting into you it would be a diffrent story. Position here is the key and in this scenario you don't have it.

Then this may be something you need to work on. It's absolutely imperative that you try to put your opponent on a hand all the time, because that's the only way to improve your handreading.
I read it all just fine, I just don't get into hope/wish/luck pissing contests very often at all especially when I am 1st to act. That is why I love this hyper aggresive person, he has you by the nuts because he has position.
Being that one must need a good hand to come out of the BB while acting 1st which in your case you didn't have a good hand. You shown that by calling his pre-flop raise. Yet you only shown that you have paired the 10 which now your weakness (pre-flop call)shows that you don't have a greak kicker for that 10. It is an easy read on the player who is in the blinds(that didn't show strength by re-raising pre-flop) . Now the hyper-aggresive player who's in position has a read on you which is much better then having a read on the cards. Something you need to work on, reading the player and not the board. Stop stereo typing players.. Yes we can label one as hyper-aggresive, passive aggresive, a rock, et-cetra. Yet to discount that they can change strategy in the middle of any hand is to believe they only play one certain way(Period). The saying goes "Mix it up" so those who are labeled as such, I am sure as well also "Mix it up".

And risking to be outdrawn by Jx, if he has a pair of 10s with a better kicker than me. No, smooth calling with a marginal hand is NOT the way to go, and it is not the way of a hyperaggressive player. Calling and hoping to catch a bluff, on the other hand, is Yet it isn't always the way with a hyper-aggresive player. Keep generalizing and stereo typing those players, to constantly think that is the way they always play is stereo typing. Even a rock can all of a sudden become the hyper-aggresive. Now if the hyper-aggresive has changed in this hand, then what you going to think?
It will definatly throw you off your game into again guessing what hands he may or may not have.

If you, in limit shorthanded poker, do not raise when you think you have the better hand, you're missing out on a lot of profit. If he thought I was just bluffing, this would be an okay way to play it. But why would he think that? If he believes me when I tell him I have a top pair, he also knows I'll be forced to call a raise from him. Not raising is terrible.
I don't need to think, I know when I have the better hand. I don't pussy foot around, slow play, check raise. No fancy pants play here.. Either you have the hand or your don't, throw out the occasional bluff(semi bluff), feeler bet to see where everyone stands. I told you plenty of times, one must pay to beat me. If I am beat and I know it.. no need to screw around and try to outbeat someone when there are plenty of other battles/times I can outbeat them.

And again I have to ask: What does "hyper aggressive" describe to you?
Any 2 Card player, which we shouldn't discount that he doesn't have any other skills or strategies in his repetoire.


Don't give generalized advice that in no way takes into account who you're playing against. If a rock had raised, I would have folded. I've folded much stronger hands than this in the big blind.
Are you not wasting money on a marginal hand? Last I recalled 10,8 is marginal, so yes it takes into full account who you are playing against. A marginal hand is a marginal hand no matter how you try to slice and dice it.

Now, here's the thing. With skilled enough opponents, you won't get the privilege of waiting for monster hands that you can safely raise. They will outplay you if you do this, because you won't get paid enough when you do get them, and you will be forced to pay too much in blinds in between. Learning to play marginal hands well is difficult, but absolutely necessary when playing tougher competition. It's not essential at 2/4 (although there's a noticeable difference between 1/2 and 2/4 - there are actually internet professionals starting at the 2/4 limits), but it definitely puts more money in your pocket.

I never said you have to have a monster hand. Just a little more the marginal will do especially when you are 1st to act.



Yeah, being a calling station is by far the best way to play against overaggro players.

When's yer book coming out twizzy?

(I'd say more, but FP has everything bar sarcastic remarks covered here, so I'll just cover that)
Nope by having you bet into my superiorior hand is better then having you fold to it.

My books is allready out, they were thinking of putting it next to yours in the comic book section.

not raising when you know you have the best hand is the biggest mistake you will make

Yet odd how that raise can make an opponent fold when indeed you could be extracting more money from them just by calling instead.

Certainly. But if you have a read, stick with it, and alter it if you find he has the capability of being tricky. I have yet to find a reason to believe this read is incorrect, and I'm not going to alter my gameplan due to paranoia.

Quote:

What? You must not have understood: He raises on average about 30% of his preflop hands. How many of those hands do you think have me beat right now?

Incorrect. I think we've found the source of the problem.

I don't mind looking like an "amateur," as long as I show long term profit. Even the worst maniac on the planet gets dealt pocket aces from time to time. But I'm not going to play suboptimally because of paranoia.

Does "how will it make you look if you lose" actually factor in to this discussion, to you?
Since you think that 65% of his hands are better than mine, I can understand your reasoning. However, 65% of his holdings are not better than mine; this is where your mistake lies.

What good are reads if you discard them? Sure people can "mix it up," but you're suggesting that I pay no attention to labels that people have deserved, while simultaneously claiming that I should "read the player and not the cards" while simultaneously saying that my hand is not good enough to play out of the BB.

And he would have earned himself a new note in the long list of the ones I already had on him: "can be tricky." But before he shows that he's capable of it, I won't discard what I know about him due to paranoia.

I have no idea how your answer ties in to what I wrote.

Quote:

And again I have to ask: What does "hyper aggressive" describe to you?

For the third time in the same post, I will point out that I do not trust paranoia to guide my way of playing. Reads and probabilities do the trick for me. It's worked so far.

I was not wasting money on a marginal hand. I was making money on a marginal hand; I have the best hand 3 times out of 4 on this flop (I'll show you further down). Did you somewhere get the idea that I lost this pot? Not that it matters whether I won it or lost it, but you keep confidently claiming that he must have had a better hand, and I don't know what gives you that idea.

Where do you draw the line?

In closing: There are 1300 possible starting hands. My read (and it's a fairly solid one) suggests that he raises on average 30% of them. That's 450 hands. You claim that 65% of these (about 300) have me beat on this flop, and try as you might, AA-TT, AT-9T, 55, 22, T5, T2, does not sum up to 300. To sum up:

AA-JJ: 6*4 = 24 hands.
TT: 1 hand (only two remaining 10s)
AT-9T: 8*6 = 48
55, 22: 6*2 = 12 hands.
T5, T2: 4+4 = 8
52: 6

Sum: 99.
94/450 = 0.22.

He has me beat on this flop 22% of the time.

And that's not even taking into account the fact that the 30% preflopraise stat is adjusted for ALL positions, and that he (if he has any knowledge) would be a lot more open to raise with weaker holdings on the button. And it's not even taking into account that he would want to isolate the limper! And I'm even allowing the possibility for T5, T2, 52 - hands that shouldn't be in his preflop raise range even if it was 50%.

No, Twizzy, he does not have a better hand than me 65% of the times on this flop.

I wasn't going to bother, but I finally gave in and I looked up Sklansky's word on hands that can be played out of the big blind - and 10-8 is listed.

Can we let the preflop play go now, please, and focus on the interesting move - the river?

In closing: There are 1300 possible starting hands. My read (and it's a fairly solid one) suggests that he raises on average 30% of them. That's 450 hands.

Ummmm learn your math 1st before we go any further. 450 hands is not 30%
Try 390 hands before you speak.. which now at 65% of those hands are..
Now 39 hands is 10% X 6= 234 hands.. and 14.5 hands cause that is 5%.. you have 248.5 hands.

99/390= 3.939393.. so now you are almost a coin toss against him. You still willing to play with a marginal hand on a close coin toss?

And that's not even taking into account the fact that the 30% preflopraise stat is adjusted for ALL positions
Yes so for all you know he could even have the straight, don't know if a possible flush because you didn't say anything about the last 2 cards.

Now you ask where do I draw the line? I little more then a coin toss.. I prefer to be about 70/30 instead of 60/40 or 50/50.. That is why I don't pussy foot, play fancy at 70/30.. Yes I get callers and that is what I love about being at 70/30.. Even better when I am 80/20 and they are betting into me..

I will agree that you do have potential to win this hand. However I just prefer to play hyper-aggresive players with a higher % hand to win.

I wasn't going to bother, but I finally gave in and I looked up Sklansky's word on hands that can be played out of the big blind - and 10-8 is listed

Yet you forgot to mention of how many players are at the table about when it can be played.

Can:Used to indicate possibility or probability.. it is possible and probable but so can't the other 1399 hands be possible and probable to be played out of the big blind.

You need a lesson in distinguishing tournament strategy from cash game strategy.

In early tournament play this is fine, because the blinds are small and tournament EV applies (that is, doubling up has less positive value than going bust has negative value). But, and this is the crux of the matter that you are missing, cash games are all about pushing small edges. If you go bust, you reload, but if you're getting your money in as a 60/40 favourite in the long run you will come out on top as long as you're managing your bankroll correctly. Waiting for better situations is somewhat akin to putting a big sticker on your forehead saying "Please steal my blinds and bluff me off hands".

I'll let FP deal with your flawed maths, as I can't be arsed.

I'll let FP deal with your flawed maths, as I can't be arsed

My flawed math..

Lets do it then.. what is 30% of 1300 hands? Last I recalled 390 hands...

Don't see after that how it becomes flawed.. 65% of 390 hands is?? once again 248.5 hands out of 390. Which he even says 99 hands have him beat.. just for sake of easy math. so 99/390 is 3.939393 (which I did on a calculator just for you)... take the decimal point and move it over to make a %.. that gives you 40% rounding up, 39% if you wish to round down. Yet in actuality it would be 39.3% so we could even say 39.5% to round to a nice neat #. Yet the 3.939393 is actually infinate..

So if you could actually find any real flaws in that by all means knock yourself out. My math has always been good, only thing I am really great at.

Address the substantial part of my post as opposed to just ignoring it and picking on my little asides, thanks.

Edit: I think my chat here says it best, if you really want to get picky.

[21:08] <Qhr1s0> what the ****
[21:08] <Qhr1s0> is he talking about
[21:08] <Qhr1s0> i mean really
[21:09] <Qhr1s0> what
[21:09] <Qhr1s0> the
[21:09] <Qhr1s0> ****
[21:09] <Qhr1s0> i love it how he jumped on that 30%
[21:09] <tenbob> lol
[21:09] <Qhr1s0> when you said "on average 30%"
[21:09] <Qhr1s0> and hyperaggro is on button with a weak limper
[21:10] <tenbob> planet earth rocks
[21:10] <Qhr1s0> HMM I WONDER IF THAT 30% MIGHT GO UP
[21:10] <Qhr1s0> AND THEREFORE ALL YOUR "MATHS" ARE IRRELEVANT

"Flawed" was probably a bad choice of word (though I have no idea what exactly you're trying to prove with 'pure' maths in a highly situational spot like this). I much prefer "irrelevant".

Edit: Oh wait, it's flawed too, loooool.

Sorry, you're right. That's 390 hands. 398, if you want to get technical, as there are 52!/2! different possible starting hands.

There rest of this, I have no idea what you're trying to show, except that I see you're still stuck on the number 65%, which you're going to have to explain to me how you come up with. Do you claim that there are more hands possible that can beat mine on that flop than the ones I counted? Seriously, list the hands that can beat me. I did - and they add upp to 94.

And Twizzy, skip the snide remarks about "learning my math." It doesn't help your case, and frankly makes you look silly.

Furthermore, I'll put money on a cointoss any day of the week, as long as I'm 51-49. Hell, there's dead money in this hand; I'll go at it as a slight underdog, too. Exploiting small edges is the name of the game in limit poker. Fortunately, in this hand, I'm not a slight underdog. I'm ahead 76% of the time (not 78% - thanks for pointing out my mistake).

Waiting for better situations is somewhat akin to putting a big sticker on your forehead saying "Please steal my blinds and bluff me off hands".

That is the flaw in your game. Always trying to steal the blinds of someone who "Lets" you for a bit until they constantly come over the top of you which then you will have to wonder what they got.

That is the wonder about playing cards.. let someone think they have the better of you for a bit, then you come back and stomp them.

Stereo typing someone "big sticker on head, one can steal blinds" is typical.

That is why I love switching my game around now so much.

Once you start labeling me as a certain way, I will toss something new into the mix.

I want you to label me as something, calling station, one who doesn't defend his blinds, one who doesn't play alot out of the small blinds, one who constantly bets the pot, one who only pre-flop raises with premium hands, and one who limps with AX suited. I love to get people thinking I do the same ol' same ol''... then when you do something diffrent out of the ordinary, there goes that label you allready have me pegged for.

Peg me with that certain style or that I like these 2 cards or those 2 cards.


If I can do such things.. I would tend to expect that others shall as well.
Yes I can label you as such but the possibility of you changing out of the blue will always be there. So I keep that in my mind as well when I am up against those I have labeled.

But to be honest here.. if you think you have the best hand on the river here. Then bet it and if a raise comes along re-raise until it becomes capped off. If caution isn't going to be thrown to the wind.. then bet it like you own it. That would be the best possiblity of taking it completly down without a fight from the aggresive person.

99/390 is hardly a number larger than 1, let alone 3.9.

Check your calculator.