Quote:
Originally Posted by Regret$
How often on average do you think we will see a villain ship or c/f a wiffed FD on river instead of calling on the turn? I realize this isn't an easy question to answer, but my concern OTT is that the most obvious flop draw may call a turn shove and c/f the river if missed.
That's hard to say. On a question like that, where we're estimating what an average unknown does in a spot where it could logically go either way, I'd defer to the experience of people who have logged thousands of games against that specific population. But my larger point was that this question is overshadowed by all of the competing concerns we're trying to juggle in a hand like this. Shoving the turn for value is fine with a few reads and some history, and possibly even okay on average against an unknown, but the key for me is that it's not clear we want to play for stacks on the turn in that manner. Because the match just started and we know very little, I think prioritizing pot control of sorts, underrepping our hand if possible, encouraging villain's air (whatever it might be) to continue, and entangling him in awkward river spots -- where we have position and he can make mistakes like miss value bets or run poor bluffs -- is a better way to go.
Quote:
How bad is a bad enough river card to fold? How about 2h?
I think 2h qualifies as bad enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Krumb Snatcha
First, I would like to say that your thought process is pretty good overall, and I agree w/ the majority of your post. However, I disagree w/ a few statements you made.
You believe villain will bluff blank rivers because if we had a draw we missed. Yes, true, our draws missed, but draws are a very small %age of our range. We mostly have Ax here and even if he is a donk he most likely knows this.
I disagree with your outline of how an average $5 unknown/donk would think about our range (if he thinks about ranges at all) or hand when we start calling down. Now, I have no way of really proving that my own conception of how such people think is correct, but in my experience, an unknown at this level is easily capable of having such diffuse thoughts as:
- "Oh, he didn't shove over my c/raise on this drawy flop, he can't have TP."
- "He's not raising, he's just calling, so he must be weak."
- "He's calling down to hit his draw."
- "I put him on exactly KT. Yeah; gotta be KT."
Quote:
In order to bluff he has to think we fold Ax which would require higher level thinking and some reads. I believe we will be getting 2:1 on the river, so hoping we fold Ax on the river is wishful thinking in a $5 HUSNG when all draws miss. Also, he reps a very thin value range if draws miss, so really not the best spot to bluff.
See my take on average $5 unknowns above.
Quote:
Also, donks, even a lot of solid players, just don't 3-barrel bluff too often, especially in spots like these.
This I think is a more compelling characterization of an average micro stakes player -- their reputation for passiveness and timidity on the river especially -- and I buy it much more than your earlier description wherein a $5 unknown was thinking about our range and what he was repping. My experience at the $5 games -- which admittedly is not recent or super-extensive -- was mixed on this issue, so I'd prefer to let individual HUSNGers make their own evaluations. But if there's a broad consensus that the $5 population is on average incapable of bluffing enough on blank rivers in a hand like this, then I'll be happy to hear it and will retract my suggestion that we call on such rivers.
Quote:
Justifying calling the river by claiming that your flop and turn EV will make up for it is kinda bad imo. Each street should be analyzed independently. Saving money on the river is very important to your overall win-rate.
I agree that we should strive to give each street its own independent and full consideration. But we also plan entire hands and lines to some degree in advance. So there's a blend of both happening per street. And in the case of blank rivers in the OP's hand, I believe that my remarks respect that blend. And to be clear, I'm not generally advocating making avoidably -EV calls because our EV on earlier streets makes up for it. But since we're in a relative information void on blank rivers, if villain does shove, it's not that clear what the avoidably bad play is. It might be folding. So I pointed out that calling has the advantage of showing a profit just on that street against someone who bluffs enough, but is also a mistake that
doesn't cost us our entire profit on the whole hand against a River Nit.
Now if it turns out that there's a consensus sentiment that the majority of $5 unknowns
are River Nits in this hand, then like I said earlier, I retract my recommendation to call on the river, but would still advise calling on the turn and seeing a river.
Last edited by lagdonk; 09-21-2010 at 01:17 AM.