Poker Stars $5/$10 Limit Razz $0.75 Ante - 4 players - View hand 2805128
DeucesCracked Poker Videos Hand History Converter

3rd Street: (0.6 SB)
Seat 1: xx xx J ____Seat 1 folds
Seat 4: xx xx J ____Seat 4 brings in for $1.50____Seat 4 folds
Seat 5: xx xx 6 ____Seat 5 completes____Seat 5 calls
Hero: 5 4 2 ___Hero raises

4th Street: (4.9 SB) (2 players)
Seat 5: xx xx 6 8 ____Seat 5 calls
Hero: 5 4 2 3 ___Hero bets

5th Street: (3.45 BB) (2 players)
Seat 5: xx xx 6 8 Q ____Seat 5 calls
Hero: 5 4 2 3 T ___Hero bets

6th Street: (5.45 BB) (2 players)
Seat 5: xx xx 6 8 Q K ____Seat 5 calls
Hero: 5 4 2 3 T J ___Hero bets

7th Street: (7.45 BB) (2 players)
Seat 5: xx xx 6 8 Q K xx____Seat 5 bets
Hero: 5 4 2 3 T J T ___Hero checks___Hero ?

I'm new to the game and wasn't sure what to do here .

Some info about Seat5 - we played 2-7 TD a lot and he is bad ,LAG ,spewy player ,i guess he plays Razz the same way.

I put him on 9 or 7 + wheel card in the hole , but its very likely that he 3bet a lot of his 76w combos . Not sure what range is reasonable for him in this spot.

3rd-6th should be standart( let me know if im wrong ) . My plan was to chek every card on the river and chek/raise 8 or better because i expect him to bet/call 98 . I will call 9 ,and i think i should call if i catch 2-5 because these are the best cards for him , not sure if that is enough calling ...

I hate folding after building a big pot , but which cards on 7th (if any ) i should chek/fold ? Other lines i can take on the river or any other street ?

Against someone fairly unknown I think I'm check-calling. When you check you practically announce that you can't beat a rough 8 which mostly means you'll have an unimproved T and he might think you can fold it. Certainly it's probably worth him trying to knock you off it.

Other streets are fine but there are potential variations you could use. You don't have to raise 3rd and calling can be deceptive and/or improve your profitability by inducing a future mistake by your opponent. But I'd raise most of the time.

The rest of the streets I think you just have to bet for value.

I am not sure what I think about check-raising the river if you improve. You'd have to consider the range he calls with vs the range he bet-calls when checked to. It would probably be a good move if you *expect* him to bluff, though, because if you lead he will fold all his bluffing hands.

SIWAS?

Do not listen to Rusty, check raising 7th is by far the best option in this spot. General population on 5/10 would flat most of theyre range in this spot vs your raise, but if your read is strong enough to belive that he will only flat 8+, I guess you can check raise if you hit 9 river aswell. If he is capable of bluffing, you should never fold river here.

For the reason Rusty said above you can flat 3rd, but in this spot i would 3bet my whole range. You have somewhere around 65% eq, and vs a aggro/spazzy opponent, he is just as likely to do mistakes in larger pots.

I was trying to think of who you could be, but didnt come up with much..We probably have played quite some in 2-7, and I will prob see you around on the razz tables.

>>we played 2-7 TD a lot and he is bad ,LAG ,spewy player

OK, he definitely would bluff a lot after your check. Does he capable to fold 8 or 9 for your XR? I think you should have some similar spots in 2-7...

i don't play razz, but at first glance, river seems like an easy check/call. maybe there's some merit to check/raise or check/fold, but i find that hard to believe. idk this game well enough, so maybe i'm dead wrong. ur hand just seems like a really good bluff catcher.

in fact, checking river with close to 100% (if not 100%) of ur range seems like the best play here. he's never ever calling with worse than ten high. he should also value bet when he makes it on the river. he'll also be tempted to bluff instead of check/giving up. seems like u put him in the spot light to make a lot of mistakes.

and i don't mind check/calling the river 100% of the time with this specific hand. even if villain is never bluffing, i'm happy with this play and expect to profit.

Thank you for the replies guys !

I guess when it looks like obv check/call its obv check/call , but i just had to ask .

Not sure what his range would be for both lines , but from what i remember he is from the players that will bet super thin (and often wrong) for value and after that -never fold .

I still think that if i will check unimproved i also should be capable of check/raising at least some % of the time.I mean betting when i improve and checking when i brick doesn't look very balanced strategy .Other advantage of check/raising imo is that he wouldn't raise me when i bet , so c/r is the only way to put more bets with my monsters.

Well , the other side of our history is that he shouldn't know me like someone who likes to fold . So maybe he will bluff ,but i doubt he will bluff a lot . And no - i think that he never folds 9 or 8 here.



I was thinking the same at the time... But now im thinking that we probably should have some semi-bluffs in our range on 3rd, and if we somehow ended up on the river with hand without much showdown value we will be forced to bet . So to balance that we should bet some of the hands when we hit.

Maybe its getting too abstract . Anyway thanks a lot for the help and gl !

Show me the math. What's the EV of check-raising, vs the EV of leading, assuming you hit (which is what I think you're talking about). Include assumptions about his bluffing frequency, value betting range and calling range.

This is the right way to analyze this spot, tho I don't expect anyone here to present a formal mathematical analysis. Another variable you should account for is how much EV you can reap by SIWASing frequently if his calling frequency is too low after a bet. And by too low, I mean anywhere south of 80%.

Why do you guys insist on betting?

The only benefit from betting are hands that bricked so badly (eg we don't even have a jack high). So ok in theory, we probably need 8 or so hands to value bet per bluff. That'll increase our overall EV by a tiny tiny bit.

But this is such a small portion of our range. it is not going to disprove checking close to 100% is sooo much better.

* There's 7.45 BB in the pot. We're first to act.
* hand vs. range equity:

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
(8- 8- 8) 6qk	20.48%	122,884	0
2345TJ	79.52%	477,116	0

Anyways in both cases

I'm going to assume:

WHEN hero BETS the river with 100% freq
IF villain is only CALLING a made 9.

* Villain has approx 5/13 outs to make a 9.
* in this specific hand (and pretty much all other cases), we have approx 5/13 outs ourselves to make a 9.

* So by betting river, we take down the pot uncontested 8/13 times (assuming villain never calls with worse than a 9).
* Of the 5/13 times we get called,
* - we make a bet 5/13 times
* - we lose a bet 8/13 times

THEN our net gain is (8/13.0 * 7.45) + (5/13.0 * 5/13.0 * 8.45) + (5/13.0 * 8/13.0 * -1) = +5.6

WHEN hero CHECKS the river with 100% freq

IF villain checks 100%:
THEN our net gain is (8/13.0 * 7.45) + (5/13.0 * 5/13.0 * 7.45) + (5/13.0 * 8/13.0 * 0) = 5.69
WHICH should approx equal 79.52% of 7.45 = +5.92 BB

IF villain bets 100%:
* lol, 79% of 8.45 BB now...

IF villain checks his airs and bet his made 9s:
THEN our net gain assuming we don't even reraise is (8/13 * 7.45) + (5/13 * 5/13 * 8.45) + (5/13 * 8/13 * -1)
WHICH equals THE EXACT SAME THING AS BETTING.

So the worst case scenario of check/not-folding seems to beat the scenario where we bet 100%.

is there a fallacy to my logic or a mistake in my maff somewhere here?

oh i forgot to include scenarios where hero bets x% and checks y%

when we bet only our made 9s and check/call the rest:
if villain only value bets made 9s:
Then our net gain is (simplifying on 9 high ties):
(we bink and villain calls) + (we bink and villain folds) + (we brick and villain bets) + (we brick and villain checks)
(5/13.0 * 5/13.0 * 8.45) + (5/13.0 * 8/13.0 * 7.45) + (8/13.0 * 5/13.0 * -1) + (8/13.0 * 8/13.0 * 7.45) = 5.6
which equals the same as the above again.

anyways my point is betting accomplishes literally nothing.
checking can only induce mistakes because villain is the one with the decisions.

villain is not going to hero fold when he makes his 8 high. he stationed 4th, 5th, and 6th, so my assumption is he'll call when he binks and folds when he can't beat my board.

i think i have some math fails in the above and i dont care to attempt it anymore. i just think the logic of checking is too strong and math should support it.

blah ok, the itch...

P of all occurrences:
P (hero binks and villain binks) = (5/13) * (5/13) = 0.15
P (hero binks and villain bricks) = (5/13) * (8/13) = 0.24
P (hero bricks and villain binks) = (8/13) * (5/13) = 0.24
P (hero bricks and villain bricks) = (8/13) * (8/13) = 0.38

EV of
1. hero checks 100% and villain checks 100%:
(0.15 * 7.45) + (0.24 * 7.45) + (0.24 * 0) + (0.38 * 7.45) = 5.74 BB

2. hero checks 100% and villain bets 100%:
(0.15 * 8.45) + (0.24 * 8.45) + (0.24 * -1) + (0.38 * 8.45) = 6.27 BB

3. hero checks and villain either a) checks his bricks or b) bets his binks:
(0.15 * 8.45) + (0.24 * 7.45) + (0.24 * -1) + (0.38 * 7.45) = 5.65 BB

4. hero bets 100% and villain only calls with 9 or better:
(0.15 * 8.45) + (0.24 * 7.45) + (0.24 * -1) + (0.38 * 7.45) = 5.65 BB

5. hero either a) bets his binks or b) checks his bricks and villain either a) folds bricks, b) calls binks, or c) bets binks
(0.15 * 8.45) + (0.24 * 7.45) + (0.24 * -1) + (0.38 * 7.45) = 5.65 BB

anyhow, there's no room for a shot at higher ev by betting. villain is just going to fold worse and call showdownable hands. OTOH, if we just check then our ev can only increase since villain may bluff.

note: this doesn't prove checking is the optimal strategy. There may be a mix of very little folding and bettin. the point is betting is just bad.

Surprised that someone actually posted math behind it. There are also two scenarios that you have to take under consideration; villain will some % of the time call when he hit T and some villains will raise xx % of theyre 8/9s. Im expecting Rusty to want math on what % he should b/r river, something that will depend on what type of hands he is raising on 3rd.

Have a feeling droseff got a lot more then he expected from tiger

I agree with your logic and rough numbers. But how about:

6. hero bets his binks, checks his losses, and villain checks behind or calls

(0.15 * 7.45) + (0.24 * 7.45) + (0.24 * 0) + (0.38 * 7.45) = 5.8865

which is more than every scenario on your list except the one where he bluffs 100%

Anyway, I don't advocate betting every time it's our turn - I was specifically responding, I thought, to the case where we HAVE binked and we're deciding what to do. If you think he will bet every time he's improved, AND call the check-raise, then clearly check-raising is the best option. I think many opponents are just checking behind.

Damn tiger, you showed me!

i think villain has to bet when he binks. A bink means he hit his draw while hero bricked in 8/13 worlds and binked in 5/13 worlds. bet/(call or fold) > check back in all worlds.

an example I can think of is villain is on a 9 high flush draw and shows us his hand. we show him our hand where we have a made straight with a redraw to a flush.

there's one round of betting left to go and the last card is dealt face down.

if we bet and villain doesn't fold then villain has at least a flush. checking seems undisputedly the best play for hero with the straight. villain should also bet 100% when he binks his draw. he'll make a bet when we have don't have a flush (like 81% of the time) and lose 1 or 2 bets when we have a flush (18% of the time).

I made an extreme simplified case where hero stations 100% as the strategy.

so...
(hero bets and villain calls) + (hero bets and villain folds) + (hero checks and villain bets) + (hero checks and villain checks)
(0.15 * 8.45) + (0.24 * 7.24) + (0.24 * => -1 <=) + (0.38 * 7.45) = 5.6

If you set hero calls and loses (0.24 * -1) to hero folds when villain has it (0.24 * 0) in all other scenarios then hero's ev goes up in each one of them.

I guess if you really want to solve for the equilibrium point...

when hero checks 100% and villain bricks:

ev(villain checks) = 0
ev(villain bluffs) = 7.45 * (hero folds) + -1 * (hero calls)

0 = 7.45 * (1-x) + -1 * x
8.45x = 7.45
x = 0.88

so when hero peels 88% of the time, hero is pretty much indifferent to whatever villain does. but practically i think stationing close to 100% yields the highest ev since i'd expect most people to bluff too much when they brick out.

also it shouldn't be too hard to make a judgement on which opponents u station light and which opponents u should fold to. if u see villain check/gives up a king high low everytime then u should probably fold some hands.

i guess against good players who bluff a perfect % i need to start folding at the 88% mark. but even then, stationing 100% gives up a very small fraction. if i start folding, i might make too many folds. so i think a good approach is to just station to be on the safer side.

also i'd expect a good ten is in the top 88%tile of hands. so if hero were to fold, this would not be one of them.

assuming that it isn't top 88%... still, a huge portion of hero's range are ten highs. Hero can have ten high with a paired ten, ten high with a king, etc. So I guess if u really want to play super unexploitable and not exploit people then the best thing to do is to fold specific ten highs to control the frequencies (eg. fold only on king rivers, etc)

lol ok im terrible at razz. I think everything I said before hand was garbage. I think I went into making the assumption that hero always has a ten high made. that isn't true. checking 100% is garbage. hero is better off just betting dark.

I guess I was looking only at hand vs. range with one street left to go. I went into the extreme and basically said hero has a made hand and villain is drawing. There's no point to betting.

That's far from the truth as I looked into this a little deeper. This is far more complex than I thought...

if you look at range vs. range where hero 3b 3 different cards where 1 card is ten or under and the other is 8 or under and hero barrels off every street after:

ProPokerTools Razz Simulation

600,000 trials (Randomized)

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
(t- 8- 2) 3TJ*	59.29%	355,625	214
(7- 5- 6 8) qk*	40.71%	244,161	214

Hero's a favorite, but it's not even that big. I guess that means he'll have lots of combos of hands where he doesn't even have ten high. It basically is a spot where two people are drawing and hero has more values than bluffs. I think because it is so hard for villain to reraise hero, hero should just value bet super duper thin.

Hero should therefore bet this specific hand as a value bet.

Villain should also station river liberally (with his ten highs and maybe even jack highs).
villain hits 9 on river:

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
(t- 8- 2) 3TJ*	26.96%	161,695	137
(7- 5- 6 8) qk9	73.04%	438,168	137

villain hits 10 on river:

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
(t- 8- 2) 3TJ*	66.56%	399,112	461
(7- 5- 6 8) qkt	33.44%	200,427	461

villain hits jack on river:

Hand	Pot equity	Wins	Ties
(t- 8- 2) 3TJ*	83.03%	498,188	0
(7- 5- 6 8) qkj	16.97%	101,812	0

meh idk anymore. im going to avoid razz topics from now on!

I think you did just fine. No one is expecting an equilibrium solution to razz with hero's whole range. I think you should usually start with the assumption that villain won't adjust and find the most exploitative line first. Against opponents with your assumptions I think checking is probably the best play.

Next I think about what we need to do with our specific hand against his range, assuming that he WILL notice if I check every time I'm beat and bet every time I'm not.

I don't know if I've seen too many razz posts about what to do with our entire range against his in a spot, optimally. It's certainly solvable on the river.

So ... If i get it right -
Vs unknown check/call unimproved and bet when we hit is fine.
Vs this guy check/raise when we have it and check / call wen we miss is maybe better .

And if we want to play optimally our range, then probably we will have to check /raise some of our value hands and bet some of them .

I like this approach, i use it a lot in draw games and i think it works fine .

A lot of very good and helpful posts . Unfortunately i cant contribute much to the discussion, but i learned a lot . Thanks ,guys !

Great post.

Fairly standard c/c imo.

If you're trying to exploit your opponent, then by definition you are trying to induce him to make mistakes and then take advantage of those mistakes (tho some villains need very little inducing). If you check river and he checks back with a 9 or better, you have induced him to make a mistake by not v-betting. So when you bink you do best by x/r against a player who will NOT make this mistake, and you do best by leading against a player who will. If villain chooses to fold more than 20% of the time to your x/r, he is making a mistake of you giving you too good odds on a SIWAS. Against such an opponent, ask oscillator how to exploit.

In that case, wouldn't it be slightly better to fold if the river pairs e.g. your lowest card? Not a huge difference I assume.

I think his point was to find a random way to call at the right frequency. Any K, Q, or pair is a brick there and doesn't change hero's SD value.

It's for sure about blockers and probability for opp to brick or to improve on the river.