on the river I feel that we should probably be check/folding or turning our hand intoa bluff and bombing it.

Without knowing exact player specifics it is difficult to know exactly what his range is but presumably he is checking back SDV hands on the flop and betting all of his air and while he might float the turn intending to steal it on the river, I just don't know what air he would have on the turn when the flop is pretty acceptable for c-betting.

Check/folding and bombing it are probably about equal in value imo. miami has pointed out that bet/calling is probably better than bet/folding and I tend to agree but it is just so gross.

@miami. Hard to say how he plays rivers given that nobody at the table had played back at him at all. So while he seems like a guy who might raise if led into, I had a 0 sample size for viewing the situation. I had not seen overbets from him when checked to, ever; his normal betsize was 2/3 pot to potsize.

Check/folding and bet/calling or bet/folding (depending on any extraneous reads you might get at the table) are probably about equivalent value imo. If he has almost no air in his range when we bet we are bluffing but he is rarely folding "the best hand" and if we check he is checking back all the hands we beat and we are likely beat when he bets.

Results?

@11t heros thesis: villain has air in his range here.

Hero opted to check.

Villain bets 225.

Hero?

Well obviously you aren't calling for a set draw

The 4 is obviously a good brick but unless he is specifically floating the turn with air which he checked back on the flop we are beat so I'd prefer to turn my hand into a bluff and bomb the river and try to fold out some weak showdown hand that he checked back on the flop. That is assuming he thinks we are a nit.

When we check I think folding is probably best but we only need him to be bluffing > 25% of the time to be good so check calling is probably (at worst) not a bad decision.

@OP: I read through the thread and find myself disagreeing with most of your plan for the hand. SABR and Sknight pretty much nailed it in my opinion. Aside from the point that this isn't the most +ev spot, you should also consider how much you let your frustration from not getting good starting hands + seeing villain run over the table influence your thinking and rationalize a plan based a bit more on wishful thinking of being able to play a marginal hand OOP vs. an aggressive opponent.

One thing you keep mentioning is that you are worried about 3-betting because he might 4-bet you light. As Sknight pointed out, that's not a bad thing as you can easily shove here. Small pairs have surprisingly decent equity against the range that will call you (almost 1/3rd). Also, your perceived range will look very much like AA/KK - think about from the villain's point of view - a nit limps to an aggressive straddler and then goes for a big l/rr. If someone here took a poll of what a 'nit' would have in that spot it would be heavily weighted towards AA/KK/AK. I do agree that in position and deep the bigger problem is if he flats your 3-bet, but again, because of your image and the preflop action you should get him to fold most of his range on the turn on a large # of runouts. So I think it's close between 3-betting and folding, calling being the worst.

As played your plan shouldn't be to call down under most scenarios, especially not against someone who value bets thinly. It should be to use your tight image and the fold equity that comes with you to take it away.

As played to the turn, this is an awesome spot for a big c/r. Think about it:

1. Villain almost never flopped a set after checking behind
2. You can represent 44, 55, 66, 78, all of which are consistent with preflop action and with you checking to the raiser on the flop that you can reasonably expect an aggressive player to c-bet
3. You have a tight image -> lots of fold equity

As played, c/r the river. Villain doesn't have 4x (he wouldn't pot control flop with bottom pair and then value bet bottom pair for value on the turn). He doesn't have a boat (he wouldn't check behind flopped sets). However, villain could be either bluffing (in which case calling = raising) or have pot-controlled a hand like AT/KT/QT. You can still have boats in your range as villain is likely aware that because he is aggro people will be slow-playing him more than normal.

So on the river, villain is either FoS or value betting thinly 95%+ of the time, so c/r > c/c > c/f. As for sizing, I would make it $600 or so. Too much smaller and you might just induce his air, and I don't think you want to call down for stacks in case villain played his hand weirdly and somehow does have the goods or end up folding the best hand.

Hope this helps.

@setsy
Pre: I didn't wait 2 hrs to stackoff light pre for 1/3 equity, or play a massively bloated pot oop w/ a lone 33.

Turn: if I was positive he would bet, a turn cr is a fascinating idea.

River: he was not a stationey, trickey loose pot-controller; V is a brunsonesque kindof player. Ergo his river value range that checks flop are heavily weighted to hands w a 4 (or maybe 55?)in them and not much else (6+ is prob a flop bet), while his fos range is wide--hands w a 4 are discounted due to pre.

Results: I called the river and he showed aks MHIG

@Miami--i liked the river analysis; surprisingly good; I can see how you moved up limits and are survived. In retrospect, bet-to-induce otr seems an amazing play.

Just want to say this is one of the best PAHWM threads I've seen in LLSNL - some very intriguing and insightful takes on every action from some obviously very successful posters. I especially loved miami's river b/c plan and the reasoning behind it. My snap reaction is to c/call in this spot given action and villain description - but reading other players' thoughts and strategies are exactly why I spent so much time on these forums!

'Brunsonesque' players tend to bet a very high % of the time when checked to twice. You can rarely be positive of anything in poker, but using your assumptions about player tendencies a turn bet is very likely.

River: can you please explain how villain has 4x in his range by the river given flop/turn action? Basically, why would 4x both check the flop and then bet the turn?

Incidentally, don't put too much weight on the fact that your c/c was correct in this case. How sad would you be if villain were turning a hand like 76 into a bluff on the river to get you off of hands like 88/99 which are a good part of your perceived range.

I would encourage you to, itt:

1. Post the range you assigned to him after he bet the river and why
2. How you think different parts of that range respond to a c/r
3. Use 1 and 2 to compare a river c/r with a river c/c to see which one is more +ev.

Btw, I somewhat question your assumption about this player if he doesn't c-bet overs IP on such a dry flop against a perceived nit. Most TAGs would be c-betting here.

thanks. this was a really interesting PAHWM-prob my favorite yet, way better than my own one.

i like the b/c line but we need to have paid super close attention to the villain during our session-i know you do....

good results, but i dont like the line you took in this hand-i think you get thin value owned too often or bluffed by a better hand....but i guess there is more than one way to skin a cat

Also is be interested if you posted this hand in mid stakes

Range by street.
Pre (after raise): Strongish, but still wide.
75% value: ATs+, 77+, kqo, AJo+
10% middling: other suited broadway, lower pps
15% jank: random o1cs, etc
I thought this might be more tilted to the top of range (99+, aqo). But he is wide here.

Flop: check behind means I think he has no pair (accept maybe a 4, 55, or 22... Which is a miniscule part of pre), esp not a t or better. Prob not a straight draw, but I'm less certain there.

Turn: nothing changed, I bet 33 as much for value, given I discounted pairs heavily. Prob a good spot to go for cr

River: I considered he must know I've got something and be value betting (maybe he was), but then I remembered that he prob thinks I'm another weak, drooling nit. Its possible he checked back top pair otf, but that seemed out of char, and not in line with table dynamics. So I called.

Once I had a pfr+flop check behind w/ this player on this board, and these tabke dynamics, I set his range and had no reason to change that. Its why I liked miamis line in retrospect.