Playing $10-20 Omaha-8 at the Rio.

Hero: $1,100
Villian: $300

Villian limps $10, SB completes, Hero checks BB with A10K3.

Flop: 10510

SB checks, Hero bets $10, Villian calls, SB folds

Turn: 8

Hero bets $20, Villian raises to $40, Hero calls

River: 8

Villian was sitting at the table for no more than 5 hands so no information.

What is the optimal line on the river? Check/Fold? Check/Call? Bet/Fold? Bet/Call?

Firstly I would definitely raise that over a limp pre (even 2 limps). Turn is also worth thinking about 3-betting, but would mostly just flat.
And if we were to check river then it would definitely to be to check-call. Imo both check-calling or check-raising would be bad. I prefer bet-folding to bet-calling (even though it sucks), but check-calling is probably my most preferred line.

If I'm adding correctly, there's $130 (less the rake) in the pot. Assuming neither Hero nor Villain folds, that $130 (less the rake) belongs to whomever has the best hand.

But there's more to be won or lost on the river. Hero has the second nut flush, but a full house (or quad eights, but that's far fetched) is possible. And the nut flush is possible.

The second eight on the river reduces the chance of being up against a full house... and if not, a flush will take the pot.

I can't read Villain's turn raise. My guess is it might just be with trip tens plus a good low draw.

I'd bet the river, hoping Villain raised the turn with trip tens plus a good low draw (reading Hero for trip tens and hoping for 3/4). If Villain raises, I'd resignedly call.

Buzz

The river doesn't really change anything, does it? You still lose to a full house but beat trips. I guess you now beat another AT instead of chopping, but that's it. There are plenty of villains I could check-fold against here, but vs an unknown I guess I check, cry, and call.

Listen to what buzz said.

Now if you were the kid in seat 4 or 5 ????? With the girlfriend that gave you back massage your no good; even though you were the second best player at the table.

Sincerely the kid in seat 2 with the gray long sleeve shirt.

Buzz's line and explanation is super standard and yes I am dead serious the guy who posted this question was the next best player at the table.

I don't know villain's tendencies(nor do you) so it's near impossible to know why he's doing what he's doing. But, his raise on the turn suggests that he's A) ahead of Hero's hand(and will v-bet the river) or B) perhaps peeled on the flop and has picked up a ' 'nut/nut' draw w/the A2xx(and will v-bet the river). And, you lose to both of those possible holdings. But, what if he was just semi bluffing with a low draw and whiffed? I mean, we don't know what he's capable of at this point and if he does have a busted hand, then he's likely to bet the river(knowing that's his only shot to win). So, even if you don't bet the river, you're likely to make money w/the best hand anyway it's just that the bet will be made from him opposed to you directly betting out.

That said, because we don't have a read to help us out, imo, we should use a default line that best helps us to win/save chips. Look, your hand has too much showdown value so there's no way we can check/fold, same goes for bet/ folding---without the read(and even with a read) you have to be very certain of someone's betting criteria where you would just check/fold or bet/fold. So, barring any type of fold, when we are behind, we obv save money by putting in the least amount of chips, and, at the same time, when he does hold a busted hand, we'll win chips that way, too, because he's betting all of those hands, as well(or he should). The only time you lose a little bit of value is when no bets go in on the end and villain flips up a hand like trip tens/smaller kicker.

If you weren't raised on the turn I would bet the river, but that raise is really the only part of this hand where he chose to not play 'follow the leader' with you, so now that we have something to base things on, I definitely prefer a check/call.

"and, at the same time, when he does a busted hand, we'll win chips that way, too, because he's betting all of those hands, as well(or he should). The only time you lose a little bit of value is when no bets go in on the end and villain flips up a hand like trip tens/smaller kicker."

So basically u lose value all the time. Do you really believe they are balancing their ranges and consistently if even 10% of the time betting river.

Rest assured without a doubt the correct line is bet/call.

What's sad is in this particular game not only is it wrong to check this river (on average) it is a leak

I don't know anything about this particular game, but I want to check/call this river.

I'm with Rush17. With second flush on 2 paired board, what worse hands do we expect to call a river bet? Do we expect a raise bluff from a very bad player? (Maybe at this particular table the players are that bad.)

I don't expect to have the best hand if I get raised on my river bet, therefore I check/call because my hand has some value.

I do not see the leak in checking the river. Betting looks like a spew to me.

raise pre. easy c/c on river. guy could be barreling with fd+ld or str8 draw+nld, even be spewing with something like a82x or T+ ld.

I think the important thing here is not to fold.

Think of the current pot as settled.

Think of the current pot as belonging to Hero some of the time and to Villain some of the time. Thus Hero has some equity in the current pot (because Hero is going to win the current pot some, if not most, of the time. Whoever has the better hand will win the current pot).

The only way Hero can lose this equity is by folding. So, yes, I agree with you that bet-folding sucks. Betting-intending-to-fold-if-raised is generally a poor way to determine whether or not Villain has a better hand. Much better to simply check/call.

-----

Think of initiating more river action as a separate deal.

Could Villain fold the nut flush, a better hand than Hero to Hero's river bet?

I think the answer is a very conservative Villain might make a mistake on the river and fold a hand to a bet from Hero that he would not fold if Hero checked.

Or, more likely, a Villain, holding an inferior hand (maybe trip tens with an ace kicker... or maybe an inferior flush), and suspecting Hero of trying to steal one, might pay off a bet from Hero, but not initiate a bet himself.

Thus by betting you give Villain the opportunity to make a mistake. Villain might make a mistake anyhow and bet a losing hand if Hero checks, but I think he's less likely to make this error than paying off with a losing hand.

So to me, the separate deal on the river boils down to whether we think we have a winner or a loser. I think we would have to pay off (-$40) with a loser, because we could not be certain it was a loser. But if we don't bet ourselves, I don't think we get paid off (+$40) when Villain has the loser.

We take a bath (-$80) when Villain has quad eights or tens full, but neither of those is likely. We collect +$40 more often than we lose -$40 and way more than we lose -$80.

But the main thing here is to not fold.

Buzz

Um, I'm not really sure why you wanted me to try and think about it in that frame of mind? I can't see how it helps. Tbh most of the rest of this is pretty obvious. And I don't think it's so relevant because (as I said,) my main preferred option is to check-call. And I disagree with some of it, like "the main thing here is to not fold". I still think I prefer bet-folding to bet-calling, if we're taking x-calling out of the equation -
I think you're making it too simplistic for "if we have a winner or a loser". Unless I have some kind of live read, or have some history with villain where he doesn't know relative values of hands, imo he is just not going to be raising worse than the 2nd nut flush on the river for value with that betting action so far. (Us donk-leading river we can easily have the nut flush, and with our blockers, he would obv have to be raising Q high flush or worse for value.)
And I think he's not going to be raise-bluffing there enough, given the action so far, enough to make a bet-call profitable. Though that's kind of an assumption as I don't know quite enough about a live $40/80 player's capabilities/tendencies. But I don't feel like this discussion is that important seeing as I would still mostly check-call. We can induce his bluffs, he can value own himself with worse, he may not call a donk-lead anyway, e.g with another A10xx, and we lose less if he has us beat etc.

Edit: - After reading all of the rest of the thread, it made me think that this particular game if pretty different/soft. I think against regular/competent mid-high players my line of thought stands though.

Because Hero can get to thinking that losing whatever is in the pot when the final betting round commences in a fixed limit game depends on what he does on the last betting round. It doesn't, so long as Hero does not fold to betting on the last betting round. So long as Hero doesn't fold on the last betting round, all he's really risking is whatever that last betting round costs him.

That's not terrible. (Except you don't get value for your hand if you think you probably hold winning cards).

Meh. Do as you like.

I don't know what "x-calling" is. Do you mean "check-calling"?

I was trying to keep it simple. Sorry if I made it simplistic.

Good point.

But what do you think Villain has when he limps on the first betting round, calls on the second betting round, and then raises on the third betting round after the 8?

88** is possible, but unlikely.

It is more likely that Villain already had T***, slow played it for one round ("slow played" by not immediately raising) and then picked up a low draw or a club draw with the 8. If so, Villain missed on the river but still might pay off with three tens or an inferior heart flush... or maybe he simply won't believe Hero's bet on the river and will pay off... or maybe he simply won't believe Hero's bet on the river and will raise (with the air side of a "polarized hand" after missing clubs or low on the river).

In short, I don't think Villain's raise on the third betting round means he has either the nut heart draw or a full house on the third betting round (T8**, T5**, 55**, or 88**). And if he doesn't, he holds a loser.

Indeed, I believe Villain holds a loser after this river. Accordingly, as Hero I want to make the very aggressive play of value betting Hero's hand. I think there's a fair chance Villain will pay off and if not, Hero doesn't have to show.

I don't think Villain will fold the nut heart flush... but that's possible too... let's give Villain the chance to make that error. And with the nut heart flush, Villain has a difficult time raising the possibility of a full house. I think Villain raising is polarized; either the stone cold nuts or air.

From Villain's probable perspective, Hero could have a range of hands, including the nut flush, and play this way.

I don't understand, but it doesn't matter.

We risk $20 more by calling a raise. We risk the whole damned pot ($190 less rake) by folding to a raise. The pot is too big to fold to a raise.

Check/call is not terrible. Check/fold is terrible. Bet/fold is worse.

I prefer aggressively value betting in this river situation.

You're right that we lose less if he has us beat, unless he somehow folds the winning hand to our bet.

Fair enough for you to disagree with me.

This would be a place I would make a value bet on the river. Definitely.

Buzz

This.

Look at it the other way around, what hands do you expect villain to fold on the river? Double paired board means FH is less likely, and we have the 2nd nut flush.

I could see x/c on the river if it got to 4bets on the turn, but I'm not even sure that's good.

As for "expecting" to have the worst hand if raised ... sure, but we only need to have the best hand like 10% of the time to b/c. Villain would need to never be bluffing, and always have the nut flush or a FH/quads to consider folding.

I would consider between b/c, b/f and x/c on the river in plo8 ... and it's mostly villain dependant there (although I'd probably be AI on the turn anyway, so w/e). But this is limit.

I'm half tempted to assume this entire thread is a PR stunt to make me want to play limit .

Betting you gotta be sure he's calling a worse hand, and with you holding both the ten and blockers to the flush this seems less likely. Betting I only think is likely to narrow his range even further against your showdown hand.

Checking to check call allows him to bet any bluffs and you lose just one bet to those hands that have you beat.

Checking to check raise seems super thin with your holding, unless you have a locked in read that he's floated with a worse flush/low draw and will bet any flush or worse on the river.

Bet folding or check folding seem the worst options IMO.

I can't see much beyond check call in a vacuum. But I am slightly drunk.

Pretty sure Rush nailed everything.

raise pre, 3b turn, as played c/c river

So everyone advocating x/c is (as villain) folding a T or flush you raised the turn with, to a single bet on the river?

I might. But we can be sure no one had a flush on the turn.