Viktor Von Doom
Enthusiast
Silver Level
Somewhere other than this website, I'd guess. Fair enough?
arahel_jazz
Unbalanced and Committed
Silver Level
I dunno. You're the exception. I've seen more HH posted like this where the Hero wins more often than not. Isn't it human nature to want to share the positive experiences???
Thanks for bucking the trend. I should have trusted my first instinct (which was the straight).
WVHillbilly
Legend
Silver Level
Well, you're probably right but it's my nature to want to get better and I thought maybe I played this hand (especially the river) poorly, so I posted it to see if anyone would have checked behind on the river. I believe we learn from our mistakes and just wanted to see if this was a mistake or just one of those things that happens in poker.
BTW I'm still unsure if I should have checked behind here. I know I would have sacrifice some value from the 1 or 2 pair hands that would call / shove to my river bet but would it be +EV long term to play it this way as opposed to the way I played it????
BTW I'm still unsure if I should have checked behind here. I know I would have sacrifice some value from the 1 or 2 pair hands that would call / shove to my river bet but would it be +EV long term to play it this way as opposed to the way I played it????
ChuckTs
Legend
Silver Level
Without a good read/stats on your opponent that he's a slowplayer, I think we have to bet the river.
There are so many weak one-pair hands like TT, 9T, 8T, etc, two pair hands like K9, A7 etc, and maybe even slowplayed sets. There are precisely 3 hands that we can really consider having us beat here (AA/KK raise pf I assume), and again we have to pay him off. As far as the ch-r goes I think there are still plenty of A7/K9/AT type hands that take that line, so I pay them off too.
There are so many weak one-pair hands like TT, 9T, 8T, etc, two pair hands like K9, A7 etc, and maybe even slowplayed sets. There are precisely 3 hands that we can really consider having us beat here (AA/KK raise pf I assume), and again we have to pay him off. As far as the ch-r goes I think there are still plenty of A7/K9/AT type hands that take that line, so I pay them off too.
Tygran
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
This may be too passive but this is the *exact* type of hand that gives me all sorts of trouble at this limit. 6 of my last 8 bad losses at the ring games have been flopped set, lost to a straight and almost every one of them the villain was loose/passive and played it about the same.
Granted I already know what happened... but I think I'm playing it the same up to the river and simply checking behind him on the river. This seems to be a straight a whole lot of the time...yes we will run into all sorts of hands often but I am rapidly coming to hate facing that all in bet from a check-caller at the end..
The conclusion I seem to be coming to is that if he has another set or even an over pair he's *not* going to check-call you all the way down, he's going to raise you. So players who do this usually have something like TK/TA or the straight or at least a straight draw...and AT even is going to raise you alot. Most of the time (and this can be player/read dependant too) what I'm finding is that about the only hands that are going to play this way on the end of this hand are TK, the straight and occasionally a busted straight draw that he's representing he has. This is doubly true at loose/passive tables like this one. I really don't like calling an all in on the end of this sort of hand while desperately hoping he hit his 2nd pair without a very good read on the villain.
Here's another way to think about it...I'm willing to give him 50% he's got the straight here. If he does have the straight he's definately getting all in if you bet. If he doesn't have the straight he's probably folding. So.... 50% of the time you lose the $10 in the middle, 50% of the time you win it.
HOWEVER, if you bet and he has the straight (i'm calling it 50% here) you are going to lose the $10 in the middle plus his remaining $19.60. If you bet and he doesn't have the straight, you win the $10 in the middle.
I think the odds that he calls your $10 with something you can beat are small here, not zero, but small. Even if we call it 20% that he calls your $10 bet then we are looking at (so we'll say 40% straight and all in which would be called resulting in you losing $19.60 more, 20% something less than your hand which means you'd win another $10, 40% fold and you'd win the $10 in the middle)...
Check: 50/50 so EV is 0
Bet $10: .4($10) + .2($30) + .4(-$49.20) = $4 + $6 - $19.68 = -$9.68
Anyone see any flaws in this reasoning?
Granted I already know what happened... but I think I'm playing it the same up to the river and simply checking behind him on the river. This seems to be a straight a whole lot of the time...yes we will run into all sorts of hands often but I am rapidly coming to hate facing that all in bet from a check-caller at the end..
The conclusion I seem to be coming to is that if he has another set or even an over pair he's *not* going to check-call you all the way down, he's going to raise you. So players who do this usually have something like TK/TA or the straight or at least a straight draw...and AT even is going to raise you alot. Most of the time (and this can be player/read dependant too) what I'm finding is that about the only hands that are going to play this way on the end of this hand are TK, the straight and occasionally a busted straight draw that he's representing he has. This is doubly true at loose/passive tables like this one. I really don't like calling an all in on the end of this sort of hand while desperately hoping he hit his 2nd pair without a very good read on the villain.
Here's another way to think about it...I'm willing to give him 50% he's got the straight here. If he does have the straight he's definately getting all in if you bet. If he doesn't have the straight he's probably folding. So.... 50% of the time you lose the $10 in the middle, 50% of the time you win it.
HOWEVER, if you bet and he has the straight (i'm calling it 50% here) you are going to lose the $10 in the middle plus his remaining $19.60. If you bet and he doesn't have the straight, you win the $10 in the middle.
I think the odds that he calls your $10 with something you can beat are small here, not zero, but small. Even if we call it 20% that he calls your $10 bet then we are looking at (so we'll say 40% straight and all in which would be called resulting in you losing $19.60 more, 20% something less than your hand which means you'd win another $10, 40% fold and you'd win the $10 in the middle)...
Check: 50/50 so EV is 0
Bet $10: .4($10) + .2($30) + .4(-$49.20) = $4 + $6 - $19.68 = -$9.68
Anyone see any flaws in this reasoning?
Last edited:
Tygran
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Something about that calculation doesn't look quite right to me now that I thought about another minute (did that quickly) but not sure what it is.
Regardless the principle of the argument is still the same... and that is a bet will most likely result in a fold or an all in, which you then pretty much have to call. There isn't enough money in the pot to risk it imo since a bet he will simply flat call with something you can bet isn't going to happen often.
Regardless the principle of the argument is still the same... and that is a bet will most likely result in a fold or an all in, which you then pretty much have to call. There isn't enough money in the pot to risk it imo since a bet he will simply flat call with something you can bet isn't going to happen often.
zachvac
Legend
Silver Level
Yes, main flaw is bolded. No way he has a straight 50% here. But if that's true there's no further calculation needed. If 50% of the time he has you beat and 50% you're ahead, even if he calls you no matter what, even when he's behind, a bet just breaks you even. If he calls with a straight and folds just a few missed hands (like missed draws), then the bet is -ev. No further calculations needed.
BUT, there's no way I'm giving villain a straight 50% of the time here. Lower flopped set is definitely playing like this, scared of the straight but not willing to fold. Or maybe it's a lower set that assumes his set is good and is trying to set a trap. Then there's all the 2-pair hands. Once he raises our river bet the odds of a straight increase heavily, but even if at that point a straight is 50%, we still have odds to pay him off.
Note the key is WHEN you put him on a straight. You put him on a straight after limping preflop, min-bet-calling the flop, and check-calling the turn. I say there are way too many hands that do this other than a flopped straight to give it 50%.
Tygran
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Well in my final calculation I didn't use 50/50 but I used 40/40/20.
Yes if you change the numbers it changes the result... yes he could have a smaller (or higher) set, a single pair or two pair. Straight draws will play the hand that way but they would fold, not call a river bet. My point is what is going to check raise a river here besides a straight? If he has a set, he's obviously afraid of the straight himself from how he's played it and isn't going to suddenly ch-shove. What is going to check-call? I don't see alot of hands that will check call here and that is the main crux of the argument (most of them you do beat though).
So, in summary once more...a bet will get folds from most single pairs and busted draws, and might get a call from other sets/2 pair BUT I don't see this happening too often because of how it was played. I would expect 2 pair or other sets to have stuck in a reraise at some point prior to now with the exception of TK. And of course you will get reraised with straights. And again I'm discounting most other sets/2 pair hands likelihood on the basis of his passive play. Aggressive play could of course mean a straight as well, but I think more often it's someone with a solid hand who is motivated to be more aggressive to prevent someone else from drawing the straight. But this player was described as loose/passive and they love to ch-call down then ch-shove monsters, and they won't ch-call the river without a very good hand.
I don't think 40/40/20 is that far off here.. but I'm willing to debate it.
If you want to tweak it a little I could also go for this (we'll just use harrington's rule): 35% straight (or KK) and will get all-in/35% hand less than ours and fold/20% hand less than ours and call/10% all-in bluff
If you want to look at it that way then it's kinda marginal. 10% is probably too much even for a loose/passive here... LAG sure 10% is fine but he's not LAG.
Yes if you change the numbers it changes the result... yes he could have a smaller (or higher) set, a single pair or two pair. Straight draws will play the hand that way but they would fold, not call a river bet. My point is what is going to check raise a river here besides a straight? If he has a set, he's obviously afraid of the straight himself from how he's played it and isn't going to suddenly ch-shove. What is going to check-call? I don't see alot of hands that will check call here and that is the main crux of the argument (most of them you do beat though).
So, in summary once more...a bet will get folds from most single pairs and busted draws, and might get a call from other sets/2 pair BUT I don't see this happening too often because of how it was played. I would expect 2 pair or other sets to have stuck in a reraise at some point prior to now with the exception of TK. And of course you will get reraised with straights. And again I'm discounting most other sets/2 pair hands likelihood on the basis of his passive play. Aggressive play could of course mean a straight as well, but I think more often it's someone with a solid hand who is motivated to be more aggressive to prevent someone else from drawing the straight. But this player was described as loose/passive and they love to ch-call down then ch-shove monsters, and they won't ch-call the river without a very good hand.
I don't think 40/40/20 is that far off here.. but I'm willing to debate it.
If you want to tweak it a little I could also go for this (we'll just use harrington's rule): 35% straight (or KK) and will get all-in/35% hand less than ours and fold/20% hand less than ours and call/10% all-in bluff
If you want to look at it that way then it's kinda marginal. 10% is probably too much even for a loose/passive here... LAG sure 10% is fine but he's not LAG.
Last edited:
ChuckTs
Legend
Silver Level
Well your calcs might be off some (I do think it will take a little more in-depth analysis to prove this one since some of your assumptions are a little off IMO), but you do have some good logic there Tygran.
I think we need some stats on villain to make a proper proof here.
Based fully on feel I'd say I agree that we're not getting smooth called that often on the river here, but I still do see it with the 9T/J9/T8 type hands if villain is especially weak. Otherwise I agree we're mostly getting check-raised on the river but again based on feel I'd say vs the average unknown 25nl player we're often going to see those two pair hands here, as well as some other AT/AJ single-pair hands.
I think we need some stats on villain to make a proper proof here.
Based fully on feel I'd say I agree that we're not getting smooth called that often on the river here, but I still do see it with the 9T/J9/T8 type hands if villain is especially weak. Otherwise I agree we're mostly getting check-raised on the river but again based on feel I'd say vs the average unknown 25nl player we're often going to see those two pair hands here, as well as some other AT/AJ single-pair hands.
Tygran
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Yeah knowing more about the villain could make a huge difference here. Against an unknown in this spot my approach is generally to initially give them the benefit of the doubt until they give me a reason to believe otherwise. Part of the reason for this is that really bad players (the type who will call the river here with T-8 or 9-Q or god knows what) usually will demonstrate this fact pretty quickly after sitting. In the absence of anything to prove he is this type of player, I'm not going to assume he will call a river bet with a very weak hand (doesn't mean he won't! Just means I have no indication that he will), and I'm also going to assume he will usually raise me with 2 pair or better (most players would).
I couldn't agree more though that knowing more about the villain could drastically alter my perception of his likely holdings and actions.
I'm enjoying this thread, and to be honest this type of hand has been plaguing me lately so I've been thinking about it a whole lot recently.
zachvac
Legend
Silver Level
This is the flaw. When we make the decision, he hasn't check-raised yet. We just know he's either slow-playing or is legitimately scared. We are getting calls from all sets and 2-pairs here IMO. 88 and 77 are WAY more likely than KK and AA, so we beat most sets.
Once we get check-raised on that river we can be practically sure he has a good hand. An argument can almost be made for folding here, but I've seen too many people do this with hands like TPTK (AK and AQ could even possibly do this). After the raise we are getting odds to call even if we think the majority of the time we are beat. That I think is marginal, the river bet though I think is a good play, because the majority of the time a straight leads out here, afraid that if they check we'll check behind. I'd almost put the straight % down to around 20-25%. Obviously this goes WAY up after the river. I'm not going to do the calculation, but it's possible that even if he has a straight 60% of the time an top set another 5% (stupidest way to play it ever, limping the flop, slowplaying and then shoving after a river bet with a 3 to a straight board, that's why I put it so low) we may be getting odds. Maybe not, and I think there's a case for folding the river raise, but I think checking the river after flopping top set is throwing away a lot of value.
WVHillbilly
Legend
Silver Level
So I think what we're coming to here is that it's marginal (the river bet). I really wish I had solid numbers for you on the villain here but without PT on bodog I don't. I definitely think there are a lot of hands we are beating here that play the same as the villain at this level (2pr, single pair with missed draw, and complete bluffs after missing the draw).
Tygran
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
OK Zac.. I'm legitimately curious then. Give me your %'s vs a loose/passive who has played the hand this way after the river check for the following: A Straight (can lump KK in here too if you want), 2-pair/set/single pair that he will call a bet with, 2-pair/set/single-pair that he will not call a bet with, and a stone bluff.
A large part of my reasoning is based on single pairs/busted draws definitely folding to a $10 river bet, even alot of passive players will fold 2 pair here,
although a lower set may call it (actually a lower set would probably call it, I just don't think a lower set ch-calls down often). Anyway..would another reasonable line be betting less than $10 (say ~$5?) and folding to a shove? One thing this does I think is increase the probability single pairs/2 pair call you.
A large part of my reasoning is based on single pairs/busted draws definitely folding to a $10 river bet, even alot of passive players will fold 2 pair here,
although a lower set may call it (actually a lower set would probably call it, I just don't think a lower set ch-calls down often). Anyway..would another reasonable line be betting less than $10 (say ~$5?) and folding to a shove? One thing this does I think is increase the probability single pairs/2 pair call you.
Tygran
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
I know that. Sounds to me like we are agreeing more than disagreeing on this point. If he check-raises you here (keyword if) what is he likely to have besides a straight or a bluff? very little, and you can legitimately argue that if you bet and he shoves, you should go ahead and fold it. But that's all I'm saying in what you highlighted. I agree 2 pair/77/88 are far more likely than KK/AA (if he has kings this is a textbook example of the worst possible way to play them). So what exactly did we disagree on here/why is this a flaw?
What you highlighted is only a part of my point and we are in complete agreement on that part. We also agree that if he has 77/88 say he's playing it scared. Will he call a river bet with it? I'd say probably. If we are disagreeing on anything it's this: I don't think it's very likely he has 77/88 based on the fact he hasn't reraised me on the flop or turn. I think most players would have reraised, and probably been all in on the turn at the latest. Do you think I'm giving this too much weight?
Tygran
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Woops..now I feel stupid. Been thinking you bet out $10.
Yeah I would fold to the push after a $5 bet here.
WVHillbilly
Legend
Silver Level
If this is the case then checking behind should be your play here.
Tygran
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
Not necessarily because alot of hands he might have would call $5 but not shove and you are only losing value when he does have the straight.
But I won't argue that checking behind is wrong either. In fact that's basically what I've been arguing in this thread is that you should consider it strongly.
I think I would take one of these two lines and my read on the villain would go a long way towards determining exactly what I did.
But I won't argue that checking behind is wrong either. In fact that's basically what I've been arguing in this thread is that you should consider it strongly.
I think I would take one of these two lines and my read on the villain would go a long way towards determining exactly what I did.
WVHillbilly
Legend
Silver Level
I think it's either check behind or bet and call the shove. There are a ton of donks at this level who think two pair is unbeatable and will gladly shove with it (they're my favorites BTW) so we're losing something by betting and folding to a shove.
Either way I'm really glad this thread took off with some dissenting opinions. It likely means that either both plays have equal EV and over the long term will even out.
Either way I'm really glad this thread took off with some dissenting opinions. It likely means that either both plays have equal EV and over the long term will even out.
Viktor Von Doom
Enthusiast
Silver Level
Too much analyzing in this thread.
It's $25 NL - players think slow playing and trapping is the way to go at these stakes so the river c/r almost ALWAYS represents a strong hand. I'd say 5% of the time it's a stone bluff.
$25 NL players just don't have the capacity to use much beyond level 1 thinking in most cases. Keep that in mind and you'll probably do a bit better in situations you consider tricky spots.
It's $25 NL - players think slow playing and trapping is the way to go at these stakes so the river c/r almost ALWAYS represents a strong hand. I'd say 5% of the time it's a stone bluff.
$25 NL players just don't have the capacity to use much beyond level 1 thinking in most cases. Keep that in mind and you'll probably do a bit better in situations you consider tricky spots.
Jack Daniels
Charcoal Mellowed
Silver Level
LOL Um, hello? This is the hand analysis forum, the entire point of this forum is for open discussion and analysis. And don't forget the learning aspect as well. We have members here that are obviously not as well versed as you apparently are, so it's good for them to see the discussions and trains of thought that people have. Doing so allows them to understand where structured hand analysis comes from and shows different ways that they can look at things.
Viktor Von Doom
Enthusiast
Silver Level
You should quote more than the first line of my post.
You know, context ... silly stuff like that!
Anyways ...
The point was this - too much analyzing for a $25 NL hand. Which you apparently understand since you mentioned the learning curve being involved.
That's where I think beginners can be helped. Simply realize that you don't need to over-analyze your $25 NL hands because 90% of your opponents are looking at their own hole cards compared to the community cards ... and nothing else.
Trust me, it'll increase your win rate at these stakes.
Jack Daniels
Charcoal Mellowed
Silver Level
I only quoted the first line because that was the only statement I was concerned about. While I would essentially agree with assessment of $25NL (though maybe give it a hair more credit), I disagree that there is too much analysis in this thread. While not always relevant at $25NL, structured hand analysis and poker thinking is something you learn at lower levels and refine as you move up. You don't wait until trying $200NL to start analyzing, instead you learn the analysis early on (even in $2NL if you like) and you then learn to modify it as you go up. Also, while it largely isn't so complex, it is not unnecessary. There's something to be said about being observant, knowing your opponent, and knowing when deeper thought is required.