$1000 NLHE 6-max: Value bet this river?

[BenjiHustle]

Why don't we value bet here and bluff later? Why do we have to have bluffed earlier to make this value bet pay off? What if you size your bet right to get a call from KJ who doesn't believe you and then, on a later hand, roll out another value bet that's a bluff? We have to start somewhere and play off of that image. We can't create an image without making plays. If we check here, what happens later when we bet in hopes of taking down the pot without a showdown?

To say that a check here is the right play is simply irresponsible. There's no question that we should bet in line with any other bet we would make here so as to avoid polarizing our play and also show that we can bet without the nuts. We may also have to show that we can call a pretty sick raise, so we'd keep the bet size about half the pot,so that the villain can play tricks on himself and we can gain inexpensive knowledge if they happened to flop a set or so. At what point did we stop betting 3-of-a-kind on the river when it's checked to us and has been played passively the whole way? Without information on this player's desire to slowplay a set against a flush/straight drawing board, you HAVE to bet here. I mean, do you slowplay JJJ when there are straight and flush draws lurking? Do you believe at this point that the villain hit a straight?

 

[hackmeplz]

I think it's closer than most people think, but I still think it's a vbet. Maybe if hero is shot-taking and nitting it up and villain knows that a case could be made to check back but in general I think it's a pretty easy vbet. We can bet all our xcxc combos and if we're really too heavily weighted towards value we can bet smaller (and of course bet our bluffs smaller too). If this is an issue we can also probably just bet/bet/bet a lot of small pairs too long story short I do think it's worth considering some of the things John brought up instead of just thinking "we have trips must be a value bet" but I still think it's a value bet. I just don't know why John's claiming it's a bad board to bluff though villain rarely has the nuts here so seems like a fine board to have bluffs when we get to the river with them.

 

[hackmeplz]

Why don't we value bet here and bluff later? Why do we have to have bluffed earlier to make this value bet pay off? What if you size your bet right to get a call from KJ who doesn't believe you and then, on a later hand, roll out another value bet that's a bluff? We have to start somewhere and play off of that image. We can't create an image without making plays. If we check here, what happens later when we bet in hopes of taking down the pot without a showdown?

To say that a check here is the right play is simply irresponsible. There's no question that we should bet in line with any other bet we would make here so as to avoid polarizing our play and also show that we can bet without the nuts. We may also have to show that we can call a pretty sick raise, so we'd keep the bet size about half the pot,so that the villain can play tricks on himself and we can gain inexpensive knowledge if they happened to flop a set or so. At what point did we stop betting 3-of-a-kind on the river when it's checked to us and has been played passively the whole way? Without information on this player's desire to slowplay a set against a flush/straight drawing board, you HAVE to bet here. I mean, do you slowplay JJJ when there are straight and flush draws lurking? Do you believe at this point that the villain hit a straight?

He's referring to your range here and how you would play a bluff IF you had one in this instance. It's not about whether hero has bluffed before it's if hero is not capable of bluffing in this spot and villain knows it he can't vbet very wide at all because villain can call with an extremely tight range that actually has his hand beat. For example say you're villain and you know hero never bluffs and only vbets KQ+ on this board, you're obviously not going to call with a hand that's worse than KQ, thus making a bet with KQ bad when you can just check back and still win the hand vs. hands that are worse than KQ.

 

[BenjiHustle]

He's referring to your range here and how you would play a bluff IF you had one in this instance. It's not about whether hero has bluffed before it's if hero is not capable of bluffing in this spot and villain knows it he can't vbet very wide at all because villain can call with an extremely tight range that actually has his hand beat. For example say you're villain and you know hero never bluffs and only vbets KQ+ on this board, you're obviously not going to call with a hand that's worse than KQ, thus making a bet with KQ bad when you can just check back and still win the hand vs. hands that are worse than KQ.

I understand, thank you. That's definitely different than how I took it.

Well, the only villain info that we have is that he's a VERY aggressive reg, so this board screams that we've got the best hand once villain decides to take a passive stance. There's nothing that an aggressive player would have flopped to x/c other than a straight draw and once it hits, he still would have to worry about a flush and would likely push the action there too. I just don't see a single hand that the villain could play this way and have us beat, knowing only that he's VERY aggro.

I have thought of ONE hand that villain could have here (based on his line) that beats us; only AQ. You still probably get a raise on the turn from him so that he can feel out his position though, since he's so aggressive and would probably like to take down the pot on the turn if he has anything made at that point.

 

[Mr Sandbag]

Not sure many players are checking any type of value hand on that flop when they can bet and get called by tons of drawing hands. Especially when villain has been described as "very aggressive." I'm not buying that villain has been really aggro the whole session then suddenly became passive with a value hand.

Value bet on the river seems like an easy decision. Seems like an awful board to c/r river bluff too, so it's probably an easy fold if raised on the river.

 

[BenjiHustle]

Not sure many players are checking any type of value hand on that flop when they can bet and get called by tons of drawing hands. Especially when villain has been described as "very aggressive." I'm not buying that villain has been really aggro the whole session then suddenly became passive with a value hand.

Value bet on the river seems like an easy decision. Seems like an awful board to c/r river bluff too, so it's probably an easy fold if raised on the river.

I'm in agreement up to the point of a x/r river. Say we bet 400 at a 1k pot and get raised to 950-1.1k; I think we can call that. I think that's the kind of raise that gets fired by Q9, a legitimate CO hand at a 6-max table that may have stumbled upon trips as well. Also, KT KJ or AJ seeing a possible opportunity to steamroll someone who made a small (possibly timid) bet could pull some shenanigans.

 

[John A]

John - are you saying your not sure if we should bet here because we don't have a very big bluffing range? I understand we don't have a lot of info, but we are playing against an unknown so lets analyze it from that perspective.

Correct.

And I posted questions from the start on this hand, if it's a wind tunnel hand, then easy value bet. I never said it was or wasn't a value bet at any point in this thread. I was asking for more information and saying it isn't as straight forward as people may think. It's just my opinion based on my experience.

I'm not entirely clear on what your concerns are. I understand our hand is kinda face up, and we probably aren't bluffing here often. Which means that his calling range should be stronger. But even at these stakes, just because we aren't bluffing often/ever doesn't mean we shouldnt bet for value.

This is the concern: At 100NL and under, easiest value bet ever. Why? Because our opponent will have zero bluffing range and will look us up wider. At 1kNL, depending on the questions I asked, our opponents bluffing PLUS better hand range PLUS the fact he won't call super wide will start to be larger than the EV of bet/folding or bet/calling.

The strength of our hand and the board in relation to it are such that worse hands could be calling. I think that should be enough to justify betting for value. I think not betting for value because we might get check raised is not a good reason to check. Our opponents hand should likely (even an unknown) should be stronger than trash based off the way the hand played out. So, it may be strong enough to call and yet be weak enough that we still beat it.

No, I don't agree. I mean, if he's a knob or again, based on my questions he will call with worse.

I think the frustration people are feeling is that it sounds like your saying we shouldn't do something, and then not giving reasoning for it other than 1) lack of knowledge of our opponent and 2) experience you have that is somehow intangible or that you can't communicate to us. I don't mean that with disrespect, simply that I don't see the full picture of your reasoning, which is less beneficial when we are trying to analyze a hand.

I never said that though. I did give reasons.

 

[babydrago9]

I'm probably ALWAYS betting this river, unless this guy is known for slow playing the flopped nuts or something, KQ beats so many hands. He couldve been slowplaying AA/KK, or possibly doing what commonly many people do which is not c betting flops where you have showdown value, so he could have something like A10. A more debatable question is whether to value bet a brick IMO.
If he x/r's you are in a real tough spot and your hand is just a pure bluffcatcher, and so you just have to make a read based on your notes/history/table dynamics.
Thin value spots are very important in poker, and what is major in making you a winning player IMO, this is a value bet probably at least 80 percent of the time

 

[onlinenat]

the OP needs to get back on here and tell us what he had lol I'm tired of checking this thing waiting to see.... I also wanna know what he ended up doing, and I'm guessing since he posted he made the wrong decision. Assuming he did what most of us would do and bet I'm guessing he either folded to the check raised or called it down and was beat

 

[CrushingSouls]

The worst feeling is when you get check raised on the river against a tricky aggressive player with this type of hand. I dont think anyone will play a set or straight like this unless they are spastic. But he could have QJ or Q10 if not cbetting is his style of play, same as AQ. So any of these hands will **** you when u value bet the river. Personally I would check as I couldnt think of a hand I beat where he is going to call but that fits into my style of play. Also calling the river is one of my biggest leaks so Id rather not have to make the decision lol.

On the other hand if I was playing like a maniac on the table bluffing a ton and getting away with it (every now and then I play like this), I would value bet thin as he might think Im full of shit and call with a J or worse.

 

[DunningKruger]

Such a tilting topic to read through. Putting 1knl in the title certainly gets the replies piling in.