$2NL - Represent an Ace on the River?

[c9h13no3]

There haven't been very many hands posted here that involve bluffing, so I thought I'd try to stir the pot, and throw one in.

Villain is one of the weaker players at the table. I'd guess his pokertracker stats are somewhere around 25/2/0.5. He never bluffs, and only bets when he's holding strong stuff.

I've been pretty active, and I'd say my stats are somewhere around 25/18/X. The table is extremely loose passive, and its doing a lot of limp-calling, and I've been abusing that pretty bad. But I'm not sure if many of these guys notice, since it seems like at least a few of them are just pure nut miners.

Stacks:
Hero is MP1 with $2.00
MP2 with $2.06
CO with $0.44
Button with $3.10
SB with $2.02
Villain is BB with $2.09
UTG with $1.92
UTG+1 with $0.26

SB posts the small blind of $.01.
Villain posts the big blind of $.02.
​

Hero is dealt

Preflop:
2 players fold, Hero raises to $0.08, 4 players fold, Villain calls $0.06

Potsize = $0.17

Flop:
Villain checks. Hero bets $0.14. Villain calls $0.14.

Potsize = $0.45

Turn:
Villain checks. Hero checks.

Potsize = $0.45

River:
Villain checks. Hero....

Our hand looks a lot like AQ or AJ that c-bet the flop, and then just gave up. Should we represent something like AQ on the river and bet? Or should we just give up, this is $2 NL, and they'll call anything!

 

[bw07507]

Or should we just give up, this is $2 NL, and they'll call anything!

I think you said it best here. No point in bluffing at .01/.02 you will get called down with any pair on that board much more often than not. Theres also not too many draws that he would be calling with on the flop so Im guessing he has a pair.

 

[Vollycat]

Why bluff into a table of calling stations. Even with your read on the guy that he only bets out with a strong hand, you seemed to describe him as a station like the rest of the table. If he does have an A (any A) he will call you and you lose--which means the only hand he is folding and is K high or if he had some piece of the board and decides to let it go--which he probably won't because again, he's a station.

 

[c9h13no3]

Would this change if it was 100$ NL?

And I wouldn't call him a station, more like scared money. The table isn't a bunch of calling stations, they just play very weak ABC poker. They like to see a lot of flops with hands like pocketpairs, suited connectors, ect. and try to make the nuts. This isn't the greatest table for me to be at since its not very loose (most pots have been very small), but shouldn't we be willing to take advantage of this and bet if we think our opponent is telegraphing us weakness?

Also, if we know our opponent is leading out with top pair or better, what does his range look like? We know he'd bet trip 4's, we know he'd bet 9x. So he's either holding a 7, a wiffed pocket pair (88, 66, 55), or he's drawing to a straight (T8, 68, 56, ect.). Given this range, could you argue for a bet on the river since a pair of aces beats all of it?

 

[switch0723]

I check behind here on the principle that if he called that flop with a hand he thought may have been winning. It is likely he will call your river bet here, hand like pp's or j,9, will probably call here at these stakes.

The only hands that will fold are hands that were on draws. Since no cards came to aid a draw, and no cards came would have paired up a drawing hand, it is likely you have the based hand against flopped draws. Just check behind here

 

[c9h13no3]

Maybe I just play in the one nitty 2$ game on the planet, but I figured this was worth 30 cents...

River (board: 9d 7s 4h 4d As):

Villain checks. Hero bets $.30. Villain
folds, showing 8s 8c. Hero is returned $.30
(uncalled).



Hand #50803840-3346 Summary:

$.04 is raked from a pot of $.45.
Hero wins $.41.

I suppose we all get lucky sometimes. And isn't that rake ridiculous...