I am interested to know what you heads up guys make of this river play. What is really going on here?

this was 10/20 LHE

SB/Button is a recreational player
BB is a heads up expert

I would really appreciate input from people like randomrules,
Preflop: expert is BB with Q 2
recrational player raises, expert calls

Flop: (4 recrational player) 5 3 5 (2 players)
expert checks, recrational player checks

Turn: (2 BB) 7 (2 players)
expert checks, recrational player checks

River: (2 BB) 3 (2 players)
expert bets, recrational player calls

As played nh but I think your Q is a bluff catcher here, but i'm no expert or randomrules.

These are all assumptions offcourse.

-The expert probably had a read of villain checking behind with hands with no SD-value and c-betting hands with SD-value or better
-Perhaps the expert had drived villain in a corner during the match on several flops, that he was scared the expert would check-raise this flop if he would c-bet.
-Villain thinks this is the cheapest way to say both the turn and river not knowing he is giving away information about his hand. This is also player dependent.

Flop: So the expert probably knows, villain would cbet all possible straight draws, pairs, hands with SD value including Aces and Kings , flushdraws, perhaps sets.
Turn: On the turn villain didn't bet either while there are two possible FD out there, so there is a small chance he doesn't have that either, also Hero has the Q of hearts. He probably would have bet the 7 if he had one.
River:Suddenly villain bets on a harmless looking 3. The board shows 3355 7 kicker. The expert is losing to slowplayed hands like 3, 5 , 7 , pairs . But if you read this , why would villain giving up value with such good hands(player dependent)?

This would only leaves a K or an A which we lose to. Look in pokerstove how many other hands below an A or K are rubbish hands . So the expert kicker is probably better well over 25% to call with . Oh just noticed the expert was betting, you can induce or bet out , but this is also player dependent.

Like I said, a lot of assumptions and probably I am way of. I am no expert at all. Just my opinion on a training site.

Johan

"Expert" player's bet sucks imo. Checking to induce seems way better.

If expert knows fish can't have A/K high (cus he woulda bet flop/turn).
and expert believes fish won't bluff at the river with J/T/9 high,

and if fish has made some super light calls before, then the Q high valuebet could be in line.

^^ this. In the right circumstances this is a perfectly reasonable (thin) value bet (shown in this hand...).

After the river, no need to even fear Q9 and Q8 type hands. The action after the flop is very passive, and after having a good feel for a heads up match, I might conclude my opponent has at best queen high here, i might not have bet before because so many queens beat you -- If I'm convinced my opponent ain't bluffing if he hasn't bluffed yet but could call with a jack...

board is double paired, all queens are chopping

My point exactly. makes a value bet all the more likely since you don't fear losing to a better queen anymore.

The 'expert' really shouldn't have called a raise with Q2o. It is close, but he is about 3% off the call mark.

.

Unusual play imo, I think most here would c-c / c-f some ratio, depending on villain's previous bluffing/value betting tendencies. If Veganmav is correct and 'expert' put in this much thinking to a not really worth much anyway spot, I'm impressed. But I'd more likely go with a random (if intuitively or otherwise gto balanced, a very good thing) stab at obv missed board, with or without much thinking either way.

You may be doing something much more sophisticated than I think - but with only 2 posts, maybe not.

Q2o vs random is 47.3% equity against a random hand. Is that where you're getting this 3% from? If so, you're forgetting he's getting 3:1 pot odds on the call. There are other issues as well.

How specifically does the number of posts one has equate to the likelihood of one being in the possession of sophisticated knowledge?

In the first place, he is not getting 3:1 pot odds to call. The SB had 3:1 pot odds to call, but the SB raised bringing the pot to 5, so the BB has 5:1 to call.

In the second place, it is not about the showdown equity; it is about the quality of the preflop hand vs the quality of the other preflop hands in terms of their flop value. That's the struggle of the antes/blinds at this point is all about.

I realize you may find this hard to believe, but your penis size actually increases a little with each post as well.

At some point, you become so swollen with knowledge that you almost never make mistakes like the following:

If you're counting in small blinds, there's 6 in the pot and the bb has to call 2.

Remembering that we're talking about a pf decision, explain your term "flop value" and how it differs from hot-and-cold equity.

Sorry - no offense was intended. It's purely probabilistic. Players with several thousand posts generally have been discussing ideas for a long time and have had the bad ideas beaten out of them. Even with only 400 posts, I've had many things corrected in my thinking - though there's still a long way to go. Players with few posts are a mixed lot. Some have sophisticated play and knowledge, many don't. All I was saying was that, at 2 posts, there's still some chance you're in the latter category. Not saying it's necessarily the case.


SB pays $1 blind. BB pays $2 blind. SB raises $3. There are now $6 in pot. It takes $2 for BB to call. He's getting 3:1. You seem to be confused about raising from SB. Try it at a table.

Okay - but how are you getting 3%?

If you have played much, you must realize that decent players will raise from the SB with a very large proportion of hands. Against these wide ranges, it makes sense to call at 3:1. Yes, it's true that there are domination issues with hands like Q2o, but you have to realize that this isn't FR and there's a decent likelihood that your single opponent will entirely miss the Q73 flop (or for that matter a 772 flop). And even that doesn't fully cover the reasons to call.

Is this why the site is named 2 + 2?