Folded Full House

[Four Dogs]

full tilt poker Game #705365320: $5 + $0.50 Tournament (4528864), Table 1 - 20/40 - No Limit Hold'em - 7:17:58 ET - 2006/06/11
Seat 1: pctune (1,785)
Seat 2: Four Dogs (1,300)
Seat 3: steiner1975 (1,770)
Seat 4: jacksonville (1,070)
Seat 5: CARBIDEMAN (1,680)
Seat 6: atlarge (3,310)
Seat 8: E_Z_RYDER (2,885)
Seat 9: mbreon (3,165)
Four Dogs posts the small blind of 20
steiner1975 posts the big blind of 40
The button is in seat #1
*** HOLE CARDS ***
Dealt to Four Dogs [5h Qh]
jacksonville folds
CARBIDEMAN folds
atlarge calls 40
E_Z_RYDER folds
mbreon calls 40
pctune calls 40
Four Dogs calls 20
steiner1975 checks
*** FLOP *** [2s 2c 2h]
Four Dogs checks
steiner1975 checks
atlarge checks
mbreon checks
pctune checks
*** TURN *** [2s 2c 2h] [5c]
Four Dogs bets 200
steiner1975 folds
atlarge folds
mbreon folds
pctune calls 200
*** RIVER *** [2s 2c 2h 5c] [Kd]
Four Dogs bets 600
pctune raises to 1,545, and is all in
Four Dogs has 15 seconds left to act
Four Dogs folds
Uncalled bet of 945 returned to pctune
pctune mucks
pctune wins the pot (1,800)
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot 1,800 | Rake 0
Board: [2s 2c 2h 5c Kd]
Seat 1: pctune (button) collected (1,800), mucked
Seat 2: Four Dogs (small blind) folded on the River
Seat 3: steiner1975 (big blind) folded on the Turn
Seat 4: jacksonville didn't bet (folded)
Seat 5: CARBIDEMAN didn't bet (folded)
Seat 6: atlarge folded on the Turn
Seat 8: E_Z_RYDER didn't bet (folded)
Seat 9: mbreon folded on the Turn

I hadn't noticed that the winner of this hand, pctune, was overly aggressive, but I'm still not sure I made the right call here. Then again...
even though I did make a good run at a comback it did leave me essentially crippled.

 

[Osmann]

I think you have to fold here without a doubt, cause the iónly thing you can beat is a complete bluff. I just don't understand the river bet here, and I think check calling would have been the best choice by far.

 

[Dingodaddy23]

easy easy fold

 

[Four Dogs]

I think you have to fold here without a doubt, cause the iónly thing you can beat is a complete bluff. I just don't understand the river bet here, and I think check calling would have been the best choice by far.

That was an out of position insurance bet. I hate folding the best hand to a bluff. The bet on the river was to stave off a larger bet from a high card like an ace or even a shear bluff. If your beat then your opponent will reraise which he did. If your not then he will probably fold in which case you haven't lost anything and you avoid showing your cards. Rarely will they come over the top with nothing.

 

[Dorkus Malorkus]

Very rarely will villain bet more than you bet yourself on the river if you check to him, considering you bet the pot.


Check-call river is my line here too, as checking will often induce a bluff, and by betting you're getting called invariably only by hands that beat you (donks with 33/44/A-hi aside), and having to fold to a raise.

 

[Four Dogs]

Very rarely will villain bet more than you bet yourself on the river if you check to him, considering you bet the pot.


Check-call river is my line here too, as checking will often induce a bluff, and by betting you're getting called invariably only by hands that beat you (donks with 33/44/A-hi aside), and having to fold to a raise.

This is true. Checking will often induce a bluff. But how will you know it when you see it? If your going to check and call anyway, why not bet out yourself and control the bet size rather than put yourself in the position of calling a pot sized bet or more with possibly the worst hand?

 

[xace100]

easy fold here lookin at the way he played he may of had the 2 aswell as the K. there are so many hands that could have beat you without the K or 2 in the shape of a pckt pair. but it looks to me he had the 2 cos he checks tryin to trap then just calls then the reraise he seems very strong.

 

[Tammy]

FD, I think you made the right play here all around. You had to bet out to see where you were at in the hand. When he re-raised, you got your answer. I'm thinking it's almost guaranteed that villian limped in with Kx. Probably not likely he holds the 2, but definitely a K for sure. Well played.

 

[xace100]

i thought he held the 2 bcos he called the raise on the turn making it smell a abit fishy. u have to think there was no pre flop raise so it is posibly he had a 2. why would he call a raise with Kx ?

 

[Jesus Lederer]

In relation to the river: If you have position, there´s no doubt you should check with a medium strength hand, unless your opponent is a completely donk. But if you don´t have position, thing become more difficult. In this situation the discussion is about the size of your opponent bet if you check. I understand both FD and Chris points, but i have to agree with Chris that rarely your opponent will bet more than the pot. So i consider that check-calling is the best option, because even if your opponent bets a bit more than the pot (which would make the bet-fold option better than the check-call option), you need to add the induced bluff situation.
So assuming that when your opponent raises you´re beat and when he bets he can be either making a value bet or bluffing, and also assuming that if you check he´ll bet less, equal, or barely more than the pot, then the check-call option is definitely better than the bet-fold one.
I know that what i said didn´t convice you FD (and it don´t have to, because maybe i´m the one who´s wrong), so i want to ask you a key question that can make us arrive to an agreement: how much do you think your opponent would have bet if you checked?

 

[Fish]

This is a SNG.
Your river bet of 600 was just bad.
This left you with 460 worth of chips, and thus comitted you. basically, you had to call this river bet. (almost 5:1 on your money.) [2260/460]

I like the check call (within reason) the river that someone mentioned earlier.
Another play is to value-bet 200 on river. then you can fold easilly if he comes hard over the top.
If you think your hand is good here (which it probably isn't) and you want to bet more than a few 100 chips, you have to push.

I still like the check call the river option.

 

[Four Dogs]

I know that what i said didn´t convice you FD (and it don´t have to, because maybe i´m the one who´s wrong), so i want to ask you a key question that can make us arrive to an agreement: how much do you think your opponent would have bet if you checked?

By this I hope you don't mean that I'm close minded. But your right and I can't tell you exactly why I still think that the 1/2 pot bet is the right play other than it feels right to me. When I have a very good hand, but not the nuts, I feel like I'm giving away the pot if I check. By betting 1/2 the pot, I feel I'm controlling the action. Unless my opponent has the nuts, he will either fold or call the 1/2 pot bet, in which case it has cost me 1/2 as much to see the pot than if I check and then face a pot sized or all in bet. If I've represented strength I feel that I'm unlikely to fall victim to a common bluff. I understand that conventional wisdom says check call, but this isn't the first river bet I've faced and my experience tells me to stay strong.

And Fish, as for being pot committed, I've never realy bought into that idea. Most often, people use it as an excuse to make a bad call. It's true that I was only left with 460 chips, but for me, that's often enough to get me back in the hunt. In this case I was actually able to come back to reach an above average chip stack before my TPTK got beat by a flopped set.

 

[Four Dogs]

I never lose any sleep over a folded hand Pro. He had me beat.