A table filled with fish
4 limp in
SB completes
Hero check 98o in BB
(6 SB)

Flop: 267r

SB checks
Hero bets
1 fold
2 callers
SB calls
(5 BB)

Turn 9 (4th suit)

SB checks
Hero bets
Call all around
(9 BB)

River K

SB checks
Hero checks
V1 bets
V2 folds
SB calls
Hero folds

River fold correct?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I would bet the river for value.

As played, I would over call.

OP: you need to stop getting scared of random overcards. How does anyone have a king?

K6s,K7s,K9,KT, weak two pairs that he decided not to raise turn with.

If hes really fishy he could prob still have KQ,KJ,AK here.

Folding cant be too bad here

We aren't discussing the river fold (which is actually probably a small mistake at worst once we get to this point). But the initial check is poor.

Those hands you listed? Sure, they can all exist. A loose passive player can also have a 7, a 6, 55, A2, and all sorts of stuff OP is beating. Hell, these guys can have like 95s as well. We have to bet river because we have no reason to discount any of the hands we are beating, but have every reason to discount the hands that are beating us (besides the kings up hands and turned straight draws that rivered a king).

The reason I'm being somewhat harsh and rigid about this point is that OP has already posted some threads (maybe just one) that involve being spooked by random overcards that really aren't all that scary. So I worry this is a systemic thing of him not betting rivers.

The point bears making again and again; but is it really productive to be harsh about it?

Here's what happens if we bet the river:

(1) Nobody calls us, and we win the pot.

(2) We get one or more callers, and our hand is good.

(3) We get one or more callers and lose.

(4) We get raised.

In a multiway pot like this, a bluff-raise is insane, because someone is always going to call. (We can discount (1) for the same reason.) If we are the one who calls, we are almost certainly going to lose.

So if we get raised, it should be an easy fold.

If we check and someone else bets, it is again unlikely to be a bluff, because someone is likely to call, and the hand that bets is likely to be rather stronger than one that might call. If we check and it checks through, our hand is likely to be good, but we don't win that extra bet on the river.

So on the face of it, without digging into ranges, there is a strong argument for bet/folding being a superior river line to check/calling. When we bet/fold and lose, we lose the same single bet, at the same frequency, that we lose if we check/call. But if we bet/fold, we pick up extra calls from worse hands that we generally won't get if we check/call.

A more solid analysis would depend on looking at various player's ranges and summing up the EV over various options. But the handwaving argument is quick, easy, and likely to be right.

Unlike in the other thread, my check after the K appears was not so much being worried about the K. It was being worried about having been called down on the street before (in this case the turn). I found it hard to imagine being ahead of anyone not on a draw.

On the river, I was thinking if I bet, I get raised by anyone with more than a pair of 9s and perhaps an A9. I also doubted my bet would get called by anyone who was behind me. So I checked. That said, I agree that Alan's analysis is much better. I should have bet. If I couldn't bet/fold check/fold also was a mistake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Thanks for this. It points out a recent big problem I am having. Recent because I made some significant changes to my game, and now I realize one for the worse. I have been too focused on the individual play and not thinking more strategically about the line and subsequent plays. I realized that I was far too aggressive previously (aka too much spew), now I am working my way through the opposite problem and when combined with a failure to think through the line, I am making a lot of mistakes.

Thanks again for helping me see some of them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

So you bet the turn, but you bet it with the sense that if you were called then you should be worried about being behind?

Well after 3 callers I would kinda of been worried as well .

I generally agree with this, but you have to be careful you do not do this too often in the same session. There are players that will pick up on bet/folding the river and will bluff raise your river bet, perhaps with a missed draw. I believe in bet folding the river in moderation.

But to what percent are you actually worried?

If I get called by one player, I would feel something like 90-95% confident that I have the best hand.

Assuming that we know nothing special about the players' distributions, we will treat them all the same. Here are the high/low confidence values based on this estimate:

1 player: 90-95%
2 players: 81-90%
3 players: 73-86%
4 players: 66-81%
5 players: 59-77%

So yes, you should be more worried than if you were against one player, but you should still be pretty comfortable.

(And for the careful analysts out there, you might start introducing card removal effects and that would drive these confidence numbers down a little bit. But it's not enough that I'm particularly worried.)

The only way this analysis changes is if you have knowledge about one player or another that tightens their range and increases the likelihood that they have you beat. But I'll let you play with that sort of thing on your own.

Right or wrong, the answer to your question is: yes.

now i understand why you are not worried.

But imo, i would not even exceed 50% good there after 3 callers.
adding the chance we might get raised, i dont mind the check at all.
If we had 3 check in front of us ok, we would add a lot more info to bet thinly for value.

So on the face of it, without digging into ranges, there is a strong argument for bet/folding being a superior river line to check/calling. When we bet/fold and lose, we lose the same single bet, at the same frequency, that we lose if we check/call. But if we bet/fold, we pick up extra calls from worse hands that we generally won't get if we check/call.

I really hate Bet/Folding. Take this situation. When we bet fold and lose we don't lose the same single bet, you lose the whole pot! whereas, check calling eliminates that chance. Also, the way the hand was played, if you lead river you're begging to get raised, hell I'm raising air here if I'm last to act and others have folded. Don't mind betting river but if I do, I'm never folding to a raise, and If I'm folding to a raise, I'm never leading river here.

If you're good 90%+ of the time when you're called, you're not value betting wide enough.

If I held T8s here, I would be able to say "If I get called by one player, I would feel 100% confident that I have the best hand."

Don't deflect with irrelevant points.

You think 98 is so high up in your range that only 5-10% of an opponent's calling range is between second pair fifth kicker and nut straight?

98 is a value bet but it's a thin one, not 90-95%.

I think it makes the point quite clearly. This about a specific hand that I'm holding and how I feel about this hand relative to what my opponents might be doing. My range doesn't matter here at all.

Again, my range doesn't matter. I don't believe that doing a range vs. range analysis here makes sense because we're not attempting to do any type of range balancing in this spot. I don't expect my opponents are making any type of adjustment to me at all and are just doing their thing, completely oblivious to any previous action. I have the hand that I have, and they have the hands that they have.

And yes, I think I'm pretty good against my opponents' ranges. What reason do I have to expect that sets or two pairs are in their ranges (outside of Kx two pair getting there on the river)? So there are a lot of empty categories of hands in there. (The only reason hands are in there at all is because of the passive donk factor.)

Maybe sometimes there were some Kx overcard combos that decided to hang around on the turn. And there are some better 9x hands. And everything else is kind of a puddle of drool on the floor. 7x, 6x, random small pocket pairs, maybe even ace high that got curious.

Don't forget that this is a 6-handed limped pot in a live 4/8 game. Think about the lineup of players that's necessary for that to happen. This isn't online 6-max.

If you think differently, that's fine. I'll admit this was just a number I pulled off the top of my head. I didn't do a full range count or anything. But if I were to back it off, I'd back it off to something like 80-85% against one player and not something like 70% or smaller. I think losing this spot against one caller would be quite a surprise.

How thin do you think this is?

Specifically, "some" better 9x hands is something like 24 combos (A9, Q9s, J9s, T9), and 95s- 7x 6x 55- equals 101 combos, or 80%. We can add 32 2x combos (85%), 48 KT+ (58%), or both (65%). We can discount KT+ as we see fit, that will put us around 70% and quite possibly below.

I would tend to exclude 2x and discount KT very little. I would also exclude underpairs. This not only puts us solidly sub-70 but actually sub-60 (53-57%). If we discount KT by 50%, we break 60% (63%).

Maybe I'm having counting problems.

A9 = 12 combos
Q9s = 3 combos
J9s = 3 combos
T9 = 12 combos

But I'd discount these random overcard combos (except T9). I don't see that these are 100% calling the flop bet.

Sure. You can be as optimistic/pessimistic as you choose. I'm not going to argue with that. But if you think overcards are calling a lot but bottom pair isn't, then you're making a rather inconsistent assumption.

Two nines are out of play. Still doesn't add up to 24 so I may have miscounted initially.

Overcards are calling the turn a lot more often than small pairs are calling the river or the turn. On the turn, people think KQ is a 6-outer and 33 is a 2-outer. You can argue until you're blue in the face that someone will call the turn with 33 thinking they may have the best hand but not most 4/8 villains.

Let's try the Socratic method: if you think you're 80% good here, what's the worst hand that you would feel value betting if you knew you'd get called by exactly one opponent?

We both suck at counting.

I'll grant the small pairs argument, but that wasn't even the thing being discussed. What about 2x hands? Those are 5 out hands and overcards are 6 out hands. Those are pretty close.

I'd say something like Q7/J7 would be about as weak as I'd be comfortable betting.

(This happens to be a hand that might end up with in this spot given the action. This at least side-steps the "if you were dropped into the middle of the hand" scenario if we were looking at range vs range stuff. For example, I'd bet 95 here if I had it, but I never have 95 because I don't bet the flop with it.)