Why did he check the river?

Four Dogs

Four Dogs

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Total posts
4,298
Awards
1
Chips
17
Yuck. This guy has no business making training videos. First off he doesn't know the difference between a value bet and a bluff. He raises a C.O. ATS with 55 and calls it a bluff. Of course a bluff is when you have good reason to believe your opponent has a strong hand but you can represent better. So apparently he thinks that a C.O. raise is always 66 or better.

He's heads up on the flop on a K42cc board and he continues. Again he calls this a pure bluff or a semi-bluff 'cause he has "No equity". Well, which is it? You can't semi-bluff with no equity. That's what a semi-bluff is! Also, why is he so sure he has the worst hand before the caller even acts? Just because there's one overcard on the board?

He spikes a [5] on the turn and bets for value. Well, at least he got that right.

The river is a [3] bringing in the wheel and now he CHECKS! The whole way he was sure the villain had a King
(why I haven't a clue), but NOW he's sure he has an Ace! How did that happen? Ugh.

I don't actually have much of a problem with the way he played the hand up to the river, just his logic. And it bugs the shit out of me that he's pretending to be some kind of pro.

So as I said, go ahead and play the hand as shown right up to the river (with the volume down). But the river is without question a bet/fold, meaning you bet for value but fold to a re-raise. If he has a king or maybe even some other pocket pair he may look you up for cheap but he will only raise if he has an ace.

So your instincts are correct Rick. Checking was a mistake, as is spending any more time watching this goobers videos
 
R

RickAversion

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Total posts
597
Chips
0
So, the standard line is bet since you have a set, but if he re-raises, you need to respect that he might have hit the straight. Big hand, big pot. Small hand, small pot?
 
Four Dogs

Four Dogs

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Total posts
4,298
Awards
1
Chips
17
Well, sorta. It's not that you have a set so much as that you likely have the best hand. You might even do this with just a pair in some cases if you think you can get called by worse. You should always think of your actions with the next one in mind. This is a Bet/Fold meaning you're betting for value because you have the best hand most of the time (not because you want to find out where you are) and there are weaker hands in his range that he might call with. At the same time you're ready to fold to any raise because you don't have the nuts and his bluffing frequency is next to nil. As a side, you should size your bet so that hands like Kx will call. This is a scary board for a single pair so he probably won't call much. 1/4 to 1/3 pot max.
 
Last edited:
stevenright

stevenright

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 13, 2013
Total posts
791
Chips
0
It's easy to put an A in the opponent's hand.
So, as he has a nice hand to showdown, he hasn't got a strong enough hand to bet and call a raise or a shove. So, if he thinks the guy is probably gonna bet for a bluff he will be better checking and waiting for chips to come in, and if he bets the opponent never folding an A
 
Four Dogs

Four Dogs

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Total posts
4,298
Awards
1
Chips
17
It's easy to put an A in the opponent's hand.
So, as he has a nice hand to showdown, he hasn't got a strong enough hand to bet and call a raise or a shove. So, if he thinks the guy is probably gonna bet for a bluff he will be better checking and waiting for chips to come in, and if he bets the opponent never folding an A

Or you check and he checks back a hand that he would have called a bet with and you lose value. Why is it that it's so easy to put him on an ace? Because an ace would make a straight? You can't just keep reassigning new hand ranges every time the nuts change.
 
S

sryImPro

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 3, 2011
Total posts
1,115
Chips
0
The only move that he made right in my opinion was that chek on the river, honestly...I don't really get why he 3bet preflop with pocket fives in first place...
 
btc87

btc87

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 5, 2014
Total posts
35
Chips
0
The 3bet is not that bad, but with a better postflop line he could have gotten all the money in the pot on the turn.
 
stevenright

stevenright

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 13, 2013
Total posts
791
Chips
0
Or you check and he checks back a hand that he would have called a bet with and you lose value. Why is it that it's so easy to put him on an ace? Because an ace would make a straight? You can't just keep reassigning new hand ranges every time the nuts change.

AK my friend.

He would have top pair until the river, when he wouldve gotten lucky
 
C

Cymro

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Jun 27, 2014
Total posts
53
Chips
0
Yeah, I don't hate the check here. Villain called the 3-bet, and called the two barrells, so you'd have to put him on a strong King (AK being likely) or JJ, QQ that he isnt prepared to fold. Slow played AA OR KK isn't out of the question here either. I think the instructor's reasons are a bit goofy but with so many hands that beat 55 I'd be cautious of raising again in a spot where I'm not sure if I can call a reraise.
 
F

FixdIncm

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Aug 8, 2014
Total posts
7
Chips
0
Yuck. This guy has no business making training videos. First off he doesn't know the difference between a value bet and a bluff. He raises a C.O. ATS with 55 and calls it a bluff. Of course a bluff is when you have good reason to believe your opponent has a strong hand but you can represent better. So apparently he thinks that a C.O. raise is always 66 or better.

He's heads up on the flop on a K42cc board and he continues. Again he calls this a pure bluff or a semi-bluff 'cause he has "No Equity". Well, which is it? You can't semi-bluff with no equity. That's what a semi-bluff is! Also, why is he so sure he has the worst hand before the caller even acts? Just because there's one overcard on the board?

He spikes a [5] on the turn and bets for value. Well, at least he got that right.

The river is a [3] bringing in the wheel and now he CHECKS! The whole way he was sure the villain had a King
(why I haven't a clue), but NOW he's sure he has an Ace! How did that happen? Ugh.

I don't actually have much of a problem with the way he played the hand up to the river, just his logic. And it bugs the shit out of me that he's pretending to be some kind of pro.

So as I said, go ahead and play the hand as shown right up to the river (with the volume down). But the river is without question a bet/fold, meaning you bet for value but fold to a re-raise. If he has a king or maybe even some other pocket pair he may look you up for cheap but he will only raise if he has an ace.

So your instincts are correct Rick. Checking was a mistake, as is spending any more time watching this goobers videos

I hate to be the new guy who knows everything but you're wrong about a lot of what you're saying here. I don't know this guy from adam but:

"ATS with 55 and calls it a bluff" he actually calls it a semi-bluff and he's right. 55 is a hand that wins very few pots unless it improves, additionally, any time you re-raise you are representing a much stronger hand than 55 even if that's rarely the actual strength of your hand. Any time you are representing a stronger hand than you actually have it's a bluff of some sort. Same thing's true for the flop.

As for the river, checking is not a mistake. We're in a rr pot 200bb's deep. It's extremely likely that at least one of us has an A of some sort so the issue is twofold in that our opponent could very easily have Axcc or even AK played somewhat passively cause of the deepness of the stacks and secondly that he will easily consider that we should have one and will never call with worse so when we bet we fold out everything that doesn't beat us.

All and all without some significant history against this villian or some specific reads on his play the hand is played well.
 
Four Dogs

Four Dogs

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Total posts
4,298
Awards
1
Chips
17
I hate to be the new guy who knows everything but you're wrong about a lot of what you're saying here. I don't know this guy from adam but:

No problem, and you're not the first to say that and won't be the last. But that's why we do this right?

"ATS with 55 and calls it a bluff" he actually calls it a semi-bluff and he's right. 55 is a hand that wins very few pots unless it improves, additionally, any time you re-raise you are representing a much stronger hand than 55 even if that's rarely the actual strength of your hand. Any time you are representing a stronger hand than you actually have it's a bluff of some sort. Same thing's true for the flop.



So in the video the speaker, host, whatever you want to call him, seems confused about whether it's a bluff or a semi bluff but he settles on Semi-Bluff and says that he has almost "no equity" or something along that line. The definition of a Semi Bluff is not just that you are representing a stronger hand than you actually have. A semi bluff implies that you believe you're behind but have a hand that has a good chance of improving on future streets. Maybe we're splitting hairs here but I don't think that a 2 outer qualifies. So this IMO is either a bluff a value bet or a "I'm lost in the woods and have no clue what to do so I'm going to bet" bet. For me it's a value bet. I don't really care what he thinks my bet represents, that's his problem, let his imagination run wild. I'm betting because a cut-off raise usually means nothing (that's why they call it an attempt to steal) and I've got no information that leads me to believe he's got anything stronger than a pair which is actually a pretty strong hand HU.
As for the river, checking is not a mistake. We're in a rr pot 200bb's deep. It's extremely likely that at least one of us has an A of some sort so the issue is twofold in that our opponent could very easily have Axcc or even AK played somewhat passively cause of the deepness of the stacks and secondly that he will easily consider that we should have one and will never call with worse so when we bet we fold out everything that doesn't beat us.

All and all without some significant history against this villian or some specific reads on his play the hand is played well.

So this is where we really disagree. I'm a thin value bettor. I mean RAZOR THIN. I'm betting the river whenever I think I'm ahead 51% of the time AND I can get called by worse. In this case I think a King will call a small bet and IMO that is his most likely holding. Tell me, why do you feel that it's so likely that the Villain has an ace? What action of his other than the preflop raise from the CO has lead you to believe that? What did he call the flop and turn with? Sure he could have Axcc, or any other 2 suited clubs for that matter but the fact is we have no information to lead us in that direction other than fear. In order to get to the next level in poker you have to try to squeeze as much value out of every hand that you can and IMO betting here is +EV.

Nice to meet you FixedIncm and welcome to the site.
 
chory1414

chory1414

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 21, 2013
Total posts
170
Chips
0
I don't really get why he 3bet preflop with pocket fives in first place
 
Four Dogs

Four Dogs

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Total posts
4,298
Awards
1
Chips
17
I don't really get why he 3bet preflop with pocket fives in first place
Calling would be worse IMO. If you just call you're repping no strength at all and you'll probably end up check folding the flop unless you make a set. Set mining isn't the gold mine that everyone thinks it is. I can't recall what the bet was but let's say it was $7. You will flop a set about once per 9.5 tries which means you will lose on average $59.50 before you flop one. That's alot to have to make up when you do flop it. So if you're not going to 3 bet then your best option is probably to just fold. An exception might be if effective stacks are super deep and villain is a piniata who will stack off with top pair.
 
Last edited:
Top