Quote:
Originally Posted by ATsai
Some of you guys (like CallMeVernon) are way too pessimistic about the chances that we will be value-betting into a better hand on the river.
Remember that Villain was first to act on the river, and he chose to check. Usually, a Villain who has rivered a nut hand like a straight will lead the river into us. While Villain could be playing cagey by checking a rivered straight/2pair/set to us, I would heavily discount his having those hands by the fact that he chose to check.
It is not that I'm pessimistic about betting into a better hand; it's that I think this is a spot where if we bet, the most likely scenarios are, in this order: 1) Villain folds; 2) Villain has a better hand that he calls or raises with; 3) Villain calls with a worse hand; 4) Villain raises with a worse hand. Almost anytime this is the order, checking back is correct.
ATsai claims 3 is ahead of 2, which may be true, but I am not sure. I agree that if we believe this, then we need to bet, but I am not convinced.
Let's say Villain's range here, other than air that he will always fold, is all 4 combos of AT-JTss, 2 combos of J9ss and 97ss, 12 combos of 87, 2 combos of 98s, 4 combos of 76s, 1 combo of T9ss, and 1 combo of QJss. (I am including offsuit hands we beat, but only suited hands that beat us, to account for ATsai's claim that better hands would often lead the river.)
That means there are 4 combos of 1 pair hands that we can be virtually assured will call a bet, 8 combos of hands that beat us, and 14 combos of hands we beat that might or might not call.
Given this range, for this bet to make sense, Villain has to call with the hands we beat roughly 30% of the time. So if we think this is the right range, value betting may make sense, but may not.
However, there are two problems:
1) If it happens that Villain calls 28% or less with worse than top pair, we can't bet.
2) We don't know that's the right range. There are a couple obvious ways we could be very wrong. One is if he plays offsuit connectors preflop but checks all his straights and better 2 pair to us on the river. Then there are now 4 combos of hands we can expect to call, 14 hands that may or may not call, but 27 combos of hands that beat us. In this case we could get called by all the 8x and 9x in Villain's range 100% of the time but it's still not a good bet.
Another way we could be wrong is if he doesn't play offsuit connectors. In that case we still have 4 hands we can expect to call, 8 hands that beat us, but now 5 hands that may or may not call, instead of 14. This time we can't profit on a value bet unless we're certain he calls with those 5 hands almost all the time.
While this could definitely happen, and in games other than the ones I play this could easily be a correct value bet, I am not sure why people are asserting this is not thin. How are you defining "thin" if this doesn't fit the criteria? I am not using "thin" as a euphemism for "bad" as some others on this forum probably do. It might be bad, or it might be thin and good, but I have a hard time seeing how it could be not thin. I mean I guess if you're so optimistic that you think my original range is correct AND we get called 100% of the time by 8x or better, then it's not thin, but...100% is quite optimistic. This is not a good runout for 87/86. Those of you who think this is not thin: would you bluff A
K
on the river?
EDIT: Forgot that if we include 87 we also have to include 98.
Second edit: I think ATsai and I must play in different games because where I play, river leads are bluffs somewhat often (unless the river completed a flush) and river value check/raises are somewhat common. People do not always lead strong hands out of position on the river in my player pool.
Last edited by CallMeVernon; 09-07-2015 at 01:48 AM.