$10 NLHE 6-max: Bovada - Full house on river

D

DunningKruger

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Total posts
1,030
Chips
0
In real time, there is a range only. Hero is not going to know what villain holds, for sure. It is never going to be bad to bet the river here with K-K. Donks will often raise with busted draws and 9x hands. If they fold, big deal.

Holding kings full I would hate to have villain check behind.

Regarding your last two sentences, you win the same sized pot if the river checks through or he folds to a bet.

The fact that you're chalking up suggestions to c/r as biased and results oriented advice indicates to me that you concede a c/r is better against 9x hands. You've also posted that you're putting villain on either a 9 or a flush draw here, so it seems that you're banking on this player bluff jamming a missed draw over your bet here otr often enough to compensate for the lost value in taking a sub optimal line versus the 9x part of villain's range. I'm guessing that if this player is bluff happy enough to go ape**** otr with a missed draw, he'd probably make a bet ott that you actually have a chance of folding to.
 
D

DunningKruger

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Total posts
1,030
Chips
0
I don't quite understand. There is a much lower probability that the river is a King than other cards, so do you mean that hero should check the turn?

38.6% of what I say around here shouldn't be taken too seriously. If you possess a certain clairvoyance in regard to cards that have yet to peel, (iow you play on UB or in one of the home games I frequent), then yes, bet the turn since you're about to improve to the 2nd nuts. If none of the above applies, then checking the turn can be justified. I didn't say it was necessarily the best play but I think it's fine here in this particular situation given how little we know about our opponent. At 10NL I would probably do the same.
 
S

ScottishMatt

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 20, 2012
Total posts
2,394
Chips
0
Yes perhaps... But this response is based on knowing what villain held. This response is biased because you know villain had q-9. It is not necessarily the best play always.

In real time, there is a range only. Hero is not going to know what villain holds, for sure. It is never going to be bad to bet the river here with K-K. Donks will often raise with busted draws and 9x hands. If they fold, big deal.

Holding kings full I would hate to have villain check behind.

No one except the most extreme aggrofishtards are going to raise the river on a missed draw at these stakes, in which case you will never fold an overpair regardless of the board.


You can claim I am biased in my assessment, but I wasn't referring to the Hero there, it was about the villains choice to call. Clearly the villain agrees with my assessment of the situation. So I know that he thinks along the same lines in this scenario, I feel enough so that I can justify the proposition that he would bet a nine here.

Assuming we know nothing we can still conclude that a check raise is better than a donk (at least I think so) from my analysis below:

As for the Hero's perspective, I never donk the river so my default move would be to check/raise anyway. However I cannot imagine a villain who wouldn't bet a nine here, clearly he doesn't check behind near-nut hands, we know this because he was willing to bet the turn. From that we can gather he is not exceptionally passive. So we gather he bets a nine, but we cannot know if he is foolish enough to raise a donk with trips. So we gain the same value from check raising as we do donking whenever Villain has a 9 (-15% max missed value taking into account bet sizing in the worst case scenario).

The problem now is how to extract value when he doesn't have a nine, I can't think of the villain calling a reasonably sized donk bet (like the one hero made) with anything less than a nine, so checking gives him the opportunity to fire everything that isn't willing to call. That is the only way to extract value from other hands here, if villain is particularly fishy he might call a half-pot donk if he had TT or something but again he is probably going to make a half-pot sized bet with TT anyway. So you miss no value by checking.
 
Last edited:
G

Goathair

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 19, 2012
Total posts
249
Chips
0
Sorry, maybe i shouldn't have posted the results, i didn't know if anyone was still reading it. But some good discussion about the hand.

Still bothers me i didn't take a little more time to think it through.
 
Beanfacekilla

Beanfacekilla

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Total posts
4,966
Awards
1
Chips
1
No one except the most extreme aggrofishtards are going to raise the river on a missed draw at these stakes, in which case you will never fold an overpair regardless of the board.


You can claim I am biased in my assessment, but I wasn't referring to the Hero there, it was about the villains choice to call. Clearly the villain agrees with my assessment of the situation. So I know that he thinks along the same lines in this scenario, I feel enough so that I can justify the proposition that he would bet a nine here.

Assuming we know nothing we can still conclude that a check raise is better than a donk (at least I think so) from my analysis below:

As for the Hero's perspective, I never donk the river so my default move would be to check/raise anyway. However I cannot imagine a villain who wouldn't bet a nine here, clearly he doesn't check behind near-nut hands, we know this because he was willing to bet the turn. From that we can gather he is not exceptionally passive. So we gather he bets a nine, but we cannot know if he is foolish enough to raise a donk with trips. So we gain the same value from check raising as we do donking whenever Villain has a 9 (-15% max missed value taking into account bet sizing in the worst case scenario).

The problem now is how to extract value when he doesn't have a nine, I can't think of the villain calling a reasonably sized donk bet (like the one hero made) with anything less than a nine, so checking gives him the opportunity to fire everything that isn't willing to call. That is the only way to extract value from other hands here, if villain is particularly fishy he might call a half-pot donk if he had TT or something but again he is probably going to make a half-pot sized bet with TT anyway. So you miss no value by checking.

I guess live is full of "aggrofishtards" then. I would have no problem getting a raise feom 9-3 off in this spot in most $1/$2 games that I play in.

I don't play online too much. I just never liked it as much as live. Perhaps my play decisions (they may be different than yours) would not work as well amongst online players. It seems these microstakes players play much smarter than the idiots on $1/$2 live tables I enocunter often (from what you have said about expectations from villain).

So all in all, when you put it the way you do, I can see c/r the river.
 
Beanfacekilla

Beanfacekilla

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Total posts
4,966
Awards
1
Chips
1
Regarding your last two sentences, you win the same sized pot if the river checks through or he folds to a bet.

The fact that you're chalking up suggestions to c/r as biased and results oriented advice indicates to me that you concede a c/r is better against 9x hands. You've also posted that you're putting villain on either a 9 or a flush draw here, so it seems that you're banking on this player bluff jamming a missed draw over your bet here otr often enough to compensate for the lost value in taking a sub optimal line versus the 9x part of villain's range. I'm guessing that if this player is bluff happy enough to go ape**** otr with a missed draw, he'd probably make a bet ott that you actually have a chance of folding to.

I didn't concede anything. In my game, I am not checking the river. I am not one of these folks who act strong when they can't beat much, and then check with the nuts. K-K was dead on the turn, but caught a lucky 2 outer OTR. Then I bet. Villain may think I paired the king with A-K and other K-x hands, and try to raise to extract a bit more value.

And people do try to bluff with missed draws against me often. They may not even have the 9, but they eagerly try to represent it when they miss their draw. Obviously you don't agree with me on some things, but I wasn't born yesterday. I do just fine in my game. I have always preferred live poker. The live fish play totally different than microstakes online I guess.
 
D

DunningKruger

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Total posts
1,030
Chips
0
I didn't concede anything.

I suggested a check/raise in this spot, another poster agreed with me, and then you replied with "of course" and qualified it by stating we know villain has a 9x hand here. Sounds like you think a c/r is pretty good versus 9x hands to me... but if you want to argue the contrary I'd be willing to take you up on that.

In any case, I never tried to imply at any point that you were born yesterday. I'm just trying to make a case for a c/r here and doing my best to logically explain my reasoning. If you still think a c/r is "silly" then you have the option of attempting to refute my points and if you don't that's fine too we'll just agree to disagree.
 
Beanfacekilla

Beanfacekilla

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Total posts
4,966
Awards
1
Chips
1
I suggested a check/raise in this spot, another poster agreed with me, and then you replied with "of course" and qualified it by stating we know villain has a 9x hand here. Sounds like you think a c/r is pretty good versus 9x hands to me... but if you want to argue the contrary I'd be willing to take you up on that.

In any case, I never tried to imply at any point that you were born yesterday. I'm just trying to make a case for a c/r here and doing my best to logically explain my reasoning. If you still think a c/r is "silly" then you have the option of attempting to refute my points and if you don't that's fine too we'll just agree to disagree.

I meant "of course" you are saying that because you know what villain held, and you have had way more than the 60 second clock to analyze the hand.

I respect your opinion. It is likely a good way to extract some chips from villain.

If I play straightforward poker - and bet huge hands when I hit- it seems many times people just don't believe me. For example: flop A-A-K, and I raised pre with A-K OOP... I lead right out 1/2 pot. People often think something like "no way he just bets right out with the nuts". They think this because they would check here, hoping to induce a bet and raise, and also they want their opponents to catch up. They would try and play the painfully obvious style of acting weak when strong, and vice versa.

That is why I bet the river. In my experience, at my game, people never ever believe me when I have the nuts. Even though I folded for 45 minutes straight, and I never show down garbage, they are oblivious. I think the I must be playing against the biggest donks in the world.

Perhaps I should try some of the moves you suggest if i find myself against better players.

Anyways, this is a good thread. It has me thinking of different plays that i can use in the future.
 
Beanfacekilla

Beanfacekilla

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Total posts
4,966
Awards
1
Chips
1
Oh yeah forgot to add this...

I don't wish to "argue" at all. I am not trying to convince anyone that I am right. I am simply contributing my opinion, as you and others have. It is just an opinion. And I end most of my posts with some statement like "this is only my opinion, blah blah".
 
D

DunningKruger

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Total posts
1,030
Chips
0
Leading isn't terrible, and a number of other posters itt also suggested leading otr. The alternative is certainly worth consideration however. Approaching this mathematically, you can justify either play depending on the assumptions you make for how this player responds to a bet with various portions of his range. Regarding his missed bluffs specifically, I'm thoroughly convinced that you win more on average by checking than by betting though.
 
atlantafalcons0

atlantafalcons0

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Total posts
3,713
Awards
1
Chips
4
The people advocating check raising are obviously biased by the results. Lead out - it's the right play.
 
D

DunningKruger

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Total posts
1,030
Chips
0
The people advocating check raising are obviously biased by the results. Lead out - it's the right play.

Indeed. The two people (looking back it seems that John A. said the same thing) who suggested check/raising before the results were posted are obv biased by the results.

Think about the hands you're targeting with a lead otr (88? 77?) and think about this player's overall range. You hold the Kc. To make any kind of convincing convincing argument for leading you're going to need more information on the villain here than what's been posted.
 
Bovada Poker - Bovada Casino
Top