$2.25 NLHE STT: BvB, rivered weakish 2pr

[BigThingWithHolesInIt]

$2.25 NL HE STT: BvB, rivered weakish 2pr

It was a 6-max SnG, weakish with lots of pre-flop limps and folding to c-bets.
Villain was tighter than most and had been pretty much playing ABC poker up to this point.
I was playing rather aggressively both pre- and post-flop since I had lost a rather big pot to villain in a BvB, and had thus recovered my stack by this point.

full tilt poker $2 + $0.25 No Limit Hold'em Tournament - t30/t60 Blinds - 4 players - View hand 923366
The Official DeucesCracked.com Hand History Converter

SB: t1980 33 BBs
Hero (BB): t1950 32.50 BBs
CO: t2260 37.67 BBs
BTN: t2810 46.83 BBs

Pre Flop: (t90) Hero is BB with Q :club: 2 :club:
2 folds, SB calls t30, Hero checks

Flop: (t120) 2 :diamond: A :club: 6 :heart: (2 players)
SB checks, Hero checks

Turn: (t120) T :club: (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets t90, SB calls t90

River: (t300) Q :diamond: (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets t300, SB raises to t600, Hero ???

 

[baudib1]

fold

 

[BigThingWithHolesInIt]

why

 

[baudib1]

it's a tight player check-raising the minimum on the river, he has the nuts.

 

[OzExorcist]

I just have a really hard time putting villain on any hands that we still beat. Ax for one pair is really about the only one but I can't see it waiting until the river to raise you and I don't see any other one pair hands thinking they can raise you here either.

Which means we can beat a bluff and we're behind pretty much everything else - all Ax / Qx two pair hands, KJ and sets. I know two pair feels strong but I can probably find a fold here. There's just not enough hands we beat that'll take this line.

 

[ben_rhyno]

Personally, i call here. I think he could have a weakish ace, a busted flush or just a strongish Q like QJ. How did it play out?

 

[BigThingWithHolesInIt]

Thanks for the comments. I called and he showed QT, by no means the nuts but his play made sense in retrospect. He wasn't really that tight a player, but most people at the table were limp/calling ugly hands like J3s

I figured he thought I was bluffing and he had simply paired the Q.

Is a min-raise on the river always an indication of strength though? I often interpret it as a way to say "you're just bluffing!".

 

[OzExorcist]

Certainly not always.

The action needs to be taken in context though. In this case villain called a turn bet and that make it a lot less likely that this is a bluff: it means you've bet twice postflop, so villain probably thinks you at least have something and that there's a good chance you'll call a minraise.

I'm not saying it's never a bluff but I think it's a lot less likely than, say, a spot where it's been checked to the river and then you bet.

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

A check-minraise on the river is a pretty good indication that your opponent doesn't really know what he's doing, and bad players love to do dumb crap with big hands (they love to do it with bluffs too but the river check-minraise specifically is basically a bad player's way of announcing to you that they have what they consider to be the nuts, be that the actual nuts or something close or just a set/strong two-pair).

Also, why are we overbetting the river? I'm not necessarily saying it was the wrong thing to do, just that hearing your rationale behind it would be interesting.

 

[BigThingWithHolesInIt]

Certainly not always.

The action needs to be taken in context though. In this case villain called a turn bet and that make it a lot less likely that this is a bluff: it means you've bet twice postflop, so villain probably thinks you at least have something and that there's a good chance you'll call a minraise.

I'm not saying it's never a bluff but I think it's a lot less likely than, say, a spot where it's been checked to the river and then you bet.

Yes that makes a lot of sense. Of course on the turn I was mostly concerned with my FD, and I figured that was what v would most likely put me on as well.
I think I need to be more worried about calls from unknowns in general.
What would you have done on the river?

A check-minraise on the river is a pretty good indication that your opponent doesn't really know what he's doing, and bad players love to do dumb crap with big hands (they love to do it with bluffs too but the river check-minraise specifically is basically a bad player's way of announcing to you that they have what they consider to be the nuts, be that the actual nuts or something close or just a set/strong two-pair).

Also, why are we overbetting the river? I'm not necessarily saying it was the wrong thing to do, just that hearing your rationale behind it would be interesting.

Well I wanted it to seem like a bluff - I thought a) I had almost definitely the best hand and b) I'd get a call from any Ax since I checked back on the flop and there was a busted FD the v might (somewhat correctly) put me on. I guess I should've given myself the chance to get away from the hand but that simply didn't occur to me. I basically considered myself very lucky with my well-concealed 2pr, probably too much so.

In turn could you explain why you think a check-minraise on river with a strong hand is bad play? I really want to agree because I never do it but it seems to have some merit. You make the call really tempting, so people may actually pay you off just to satisfy their curiosity, and you taunt more LAG players into shoving.

What would you have done on the river if you were in villain's shoes? Shove? (I think I would have)

 

[Rldetheflop]

In turn could you explain why you think a check-minraise on river with a strong hand is bad play? I really want to agree because I never do it

I had this same thought . I think though its probably because a min raise will still fold out weak hands and stronger hands will pay more.

 

[OzExorcist]

What would you have done on the river?

I probably check behind - Ax is about the only worse hand that will give us action so I'm OK giving up a little value against that to avoid the situation we ended up in. I expect to be taking the pot a decent chunk of the time when I check behind, FWIW, but if there's value to be extracted here it's pretty thin.

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

In turn could you explain why you think a check-minraise on river with a strong hand is bad play? I really want to agree because I never do it but it seems to have some merit. You make the call really tempting, so people may actually pay you off just to satisfy their curiosity, and you taunt more LAG players into shoving.

It's not a bad play in itself, it's just that bad players invariably do it when they have very strong hands, thus making our decision relatively easy with a lot of semi-strong TPTK/weak 2pr/etc-type hands. To put things in perspective, I'd probably rather call a more standard river raise than a minraise in this hand (well, if stacks were deeper...), even though obviously a river minraise gives us better odds to call.