Commerce 20.

Several players limp and I knuckle K5 in the heavy blind. We're 5-6 ways to the flop.

Flop comes out A84. I bet out, 2 limpers call.
Turn 5. I bet, both call.
River 9. I check, and now limper 1 fires out a bet.

This guy, he has been caught bluffing almost every river there is. All he does is chase and chase and bet all rivers checked to him, or lead out the river (often dark) if he's first to act on the street. He'll bet anything from missed gutshots to bottom pair, and I think only once did he bet like an actual flush/straight. The body language with which he bets this river resembles a lot of the times he was caught bluffing.

Limper 2 sighs and hems and haws. Now this guy, he is super weak-tight. So tight that in fact I was upset when he called the turn. His range is weak ace to a big 8 or some pocket pair. He's not so rocky that he'll only show up with AJ+ if he has an ace, but he's just way passive and weak. He starts to shrug and shake his head and it isn't an act, and after some thought decides to call Limper 1's bet in an "I'll pay him off" way.

So it's back to me, and naturally I raise.

i made a post like a year ago where i bluff-raise squeezed a multiway river in a very similar spot. it is not something i try very often because there is too much of a parlay you have to fade.

real problem is if middle guy is indeed bluffing, he will fold to the c/r and the last guy will be closing the action in a pretty decent sized pot (would be like 11 to 12bb's)

so using this crazy tool called math, estimate how often L1 is bluffing and the assumption that he does nothing but fold (that is won't call with a bluff and won't 3-bet a bluff). this estimation is actually kind of tricky because sometimes he may actually be bluffing a better hand than you given that you said he will bet like 100% of his range on the river when checked to. is he smart enough to realize that 86o *shouldn't* be the winner here and fold to the c/r? and also, sometimes he will actually wake up with a hand, like an ace or rivering two pair.

then given that L1 will fold, how often is L2 going to fold after his hemming and hawing?

you're laying yourself like 8 to 2 (or 4 to 1) on your bluff, meaning this has to work like 20% of the time. but this doesn't mean that that L2 has to fold 20% of the time to make it work, it means the entire sequence of events has to work 20% of the time.

so how often is L1 going to co-operate (i.e. be pure bluffing and fold to the c/r)? and given L1 does co-operate how often is L2 going go co-operate (i.e. fold an obvious ace closing the action in like a 10bb pot)?

so in actuality, L2 doesn't need to fold more than 20% of the time to make the bluff profitable, he has to fold significantly more, like 50+% to make it profitable to fade the L1 contingency.

mathematically the pot is probably not big enough and your read may not be strong enough to assign frequencies to their actions. but you were there and they are your reads, and you have your nitty white boy image so that works for you too.

note: obviously my "math" is pure me-talking-out-of-my-ass but the thought process is pretty sound.

CDC, your post is just along the lines of what I was thinking and your math is close to my estimation too. Risking 2BBs here to win 11BBs or so seemed worth it given the frequency with which L2 should be folding to a tighty whitey like me. He was the kind of guy who decided he might just squeeze out 8 more chips on the river, but surely not 16, and he wasn't good enough to consider that the call of the raise carried with it different circumstances than the first call.

oh pj, i edited my post like multiple times actually because you still have to account for the fact the L1 actually doesn't have a hand and folds. the whole play has to work on that 11-2 or whatever, but L2's folding frequency actually has to be higher than that because it relies so heavily on L1 folding in the first place.... i think.

I like this whether it worked or not. Because you combined your live reads ("the body language with which he raised this river"; "Limper two sighs and hems and haws . . . He starts to shrug and shake his head") with your assessment of these players ("This guy, he has been caught bluffing almost every river there is. All he does is chase and chase and bet all rivers checked to him . . . He'll bet anything from missed gutshots to bottom pair"; "Limper 2 is super weak-tight . . . he's just way passive and weak") with your specific read of what they are likely to have this particular hand.

It's good because the loose player still has two players active in the hand when he has to call the raise and the tighter player is surely thinking about the fact that you had two players already with river money in the pot--one who he surely recognizes as loosey-goosey--when you raised. Guy like this tight player are rarely going to call a river check-raise like this with just one pair. My sense is he's folding well over 50% of the time.

And these guys are now going to think twice or thrice before putting any money into the pot light on the river when you're in the pot.

I like it.

hooray! that DOES look like fun with K5s!

ps. i like it too

I love players like like this - the kind that would scoff and say something like "You can't call a river raise with one pair!"

Nice hand.

you don't look like Mos Def AND you're not Asian? My world has been turned upside down.

Given the way you've described the situation, I think you'll get enough fold-folds here for this to be profitable. If you get called though and have to show your hand you'll be able to turn your brain off for a while, since you're going to get called down pretty freakin light....

I'd prefer the river bluff-raise to put a tougher spot on the guy you're actually behind to. Like if bluffer will still call with bottom pair and you have like T9 --

You check, bluffer bets his bottom pair, weak-tight calls, you c/r, and bluffer calls "because he has a pair", I think this is more likely to get weak-tight to fold because he has to overcall.

Or the standard bluffer bets, you raise (you're inbetween the guys) and you make weak-tight call two cold.

It's also nicer if you can actually represent some kind of hand (your hand looks really strange here), but maybe it doesn't matter with these two.

In this spot I actually think it will work 20%+ of the time based on your read, but having weak-tight close the action sucks. Bluffer is bluffing, like 60%? And weak-tighty calls maybe 50% after bluffer folds?

Nobody said it yet so I will: I check this flop pretty much always and figure out what to do later. Ace high flops I usually check my flush draws.

-DeathDonkey

Even in 6 handed pots with the nut flush draw where nobody raised pf? In general I like your advice, but there are many players left to throw money into this pot, none of them raised preflop so nobody is "expected" to bet, and your draw is at the nut flush. This checking around would be sad, and multiple bets going in isn't much of a problem unless it's heads up.

But that's just it jesse, its very likely to induce a good number of folds and get called by one or two people who have pairs, its not like we are going to get 5:1 on our bet, and its not like we are going to get everyone to fold, so really we thin the field and are an underdog, its even worse if we bet and the next guy up raises and clears everyone out. Best to check and see if you want to call or raise when it comes back to you, and getting a free card isn't exactly a disaster.

-DeathDonkey

DD, the texture of this game was such that it would have been common to get worse flush draws and gutshots to call, and some of the weaker/tighter players to fold the flop with small pairs due to the presence of the A. And if I can clean up the K outs, even better. But your point is well taken and I think a flop check-and-see is a fine play here.

oh it's certainly fine...i was just trying to pick the death brain. every time i bet these flush draws the next guy raises, everyone else folds, and i am sad....so his advice is pretty valid. Perhaps I'm still used to my teeny games where everyone will peel this flop with like any two cards anyway....