Just to set the record straight, I don't like folding full houses, no one does, and I didn't
Originally Posted by ThePokerGoon
OOPS! you are right, I misread. 4x was what i meant. He bets 1.20 into a 1.75 pot. Still a weak bet, you should be potting here if not over betting for a misdirect.
1.20 into 1.60
is 3/4 pot. What's weak about that? I want a call, not a fold.
Originally Posted by acky100
How nitty was the said guy cafeman?
Originally Posted by acky100
Oh and also Cafeman; when he bets 2.25 the river and we expect either quads or a nut-flush, why not shove all in and take his stack when he has the nut flush or flush if hes capable of having lower ones? he wont fold it, and he'll get our full stack when he has us beat. Yet we only might get 3.75 more when we raise and he calls with some flushes or something.
You think he would call our shove with the flush? In this instance, I didn't think he would, so went with a value raise that a flush would call. Maybe a shove there is +EV overall though, I've not really calculated it out. Can't see anything I beat calling it in the long run (specifically against this villain - of course against a random guy I'm shoving all day long and also betting the turn).
So, let's take a look at the real reason I posted this hand. It's a cooler, and I've got to pay him off, I've got a full house.
Hang on a minute, have I really got to pay him off given villain and the line? Most of you say yes, I say maybe it's not that clear cut a case.
With regards to the turn bet (or absence thereof). If he did make his flush then I stand a chance of being blown off my redraw if he goes crazy and shoves (he's a nit). If he didn't, then he most likely folds (unless he has specifically 44 or KQ), so again, I'm not really getting value from many combos. If I don't boat up and he donks river, I intend to call regardless. I mostly never check behind in these spots of course, but in this case it was villain dependant. So again, I argue that turn is not clear cut either.
OK, let's look at the river. I'm calling 17 to win 33, I've got be good 34% of the time to break even on this call. Am I good a third of the time when I face a shove over my river reraise from a nit? What is he representing here? The board is paired, and he's not stupid. He knows I'm not stupid either. So, it comes down to this imo. He has to be bluffing more than 34% or I fold, and because he's bluffing approximately give or take and allowing for rounding errors 0% in this spot, I think I should have found a fold.
Our hand could be considered simply a bluff catcher in this instance. If he has the nut flush he is calling my river raise here 100%, if he has KQ, he's calling my river raise 100%. 4x doesn't even get this far.
We can talk about combos all we like, but when the villain's actions so clearly define his hand, then we have to accept that the other combos that existed until the river can most likely be lopped off. We're left with KK,QQ (however unlikely given preflop action) and 44.
IMO we need to ignore the 'strength' of our hand and ask can we beat what he is representing? No. So now we have to consider how often he is bluffing, because our full house is as good as the nut flush in this instance (i.e. a bluff catcher and nothing more - I believe it's referred to as 'hand equivalencey').
I notice that the replies from people who play cash games against nits on a regular basis are more understanding of my pov than those who do not.