8/16 half kill pot, 8 handed

Hero JhJs sb, half kill posted utg+1

Kill checks option, utg+2 checks, hj raises (action player that plays weak-tight post), folds to me in sb I 3bet, bb calls, utg+1 and 2 fold, hj calls.

Flop Th 8h 3c - 5.5 BB

b/c/c

Turn Th 8h 3c 4h - 8 BB

b/c/c

River Th 8h 3c 4h Ks

Should I vbet river here or too thin? I figure I’m going to call a bet so should I bet myself?

The concept of a value bet doesn't apply OOP. A value bet is an IP concept. When OOP like this, it is often better to bet even if you will only win 25% of the time (or even less) when you get action. Betting just has to suck less than check-calling.

We definitely want to bet here since they have many hands that might call a bet, but will never bet themselves... basically some or all of their pairs T or worse depending on how they play. The main question is whether we want to bet-fold or bet-call. I would mostly bet-fold here since we're likely always behind against a raise. I would need to know that villain is capable of some sophisticated or spazzy bluff raises to bet-call.

Check-call would mainly come into consideration against compulsive stabbers who bet air any time they perceive weakness. But these players are usually pretty obvious within a few rounds.

Pretty much agree with everything you said except that you can’t value bet OOP. We are probably just splitting hairs here, but what? Of course this is called a value bet in every part of poker nomenclature that I am aware of.

id bet

tougher question is what to do if raised.

Aren’t we just like never calling than on the river when we check and never catch bluff ?

It is called a value bet when we bet the river OOP expecting to win 25ish % of the time that we are called or raised? It isn't. The math, strategy, and possible scenarios are vastly different than when we are in position. You would be surprised at how many players don't have any clue how to play rivers OOP. Many of these players are like "Well I don't think I win over half the time when I am called, so I guess I better check" which is so horribly flawed that it is destroying their winrate. This spot is such an obvious bet that I worried that OP may be one of these players. And yes, there is a huge correlation between players who use the term "value bet" in these OOP spots and people who don't know how to play rivers correctly.

In this specific spot, we probably do win more than half the time when we are called. But OP needs to understand that we don't need to be winning anywhere near half the time for betting to be better than checking.

I don't think I implied anything like that. I am saying that betting is better than checking. I am not saying that we never win when we check-call.

Ok thx .
I guess we disagree (not saying I’m right) on the fact that I don’t think we win at least 50% of the time when we get called on the river .
But shouldn’t we need only to win 33% of the time because we face 2 players ?

i just think K or A are extremely bad on the river here , I couldn’t possibly call a raise either .
I just check call here and try get a read cause I think it’s very player dependent and we still face 2 players .

I have twice said that betting is often better than checking even when we only win 25% of the time or even less when called. The whole point of my posts is that we do not need to win anywhere close to 50% of the time that we are called for betting to be better than checking. This is not because there are 2 opponents. It is true heads up as well.

Betting loses a bet to better hands, but it still gets value from weaker hands that will check behind if we check such as Tx and 99. Check-calling also loses a bet to better hands, but it fails to win a bet from worse hands. The money just goes in much more favorably as a bet than it does as a check. Please think long and hard about this. If you do not fully understand what I am saying, then you have a massive leak in your river play that is costing you tons of money. It's a situation that comes up all of the time.

Isn’t the real question comparing the amount of worst hand we get call with
compare to the possibility of how agressive our opponents are by bluffing and value betting weaker hands add together ?

I don’t understand why you focus with 25% ? Size of pot ?

Higly possible i do have a leak but that K is a really bad card imo to value bet .
What are we really targeting beside a pair of T to call us ?
99 ,77 caps pf right , probably some AT as well ?
KT got there leaving out QT JT (we have 2 j) ?

Yes, it is definitely true that we are supposed be be comparing how often villains bet worse hands or bluff when we check-call to how often worse hands call us when we bet. The problem in this hand is that 1) They are extremely unlikely to bet worse made hands when we check and 2) This is a spot that is massively underbluffed when we check. That is why betting is so much better.

I am choosing 25% to make the point that we don't need to be winning very often when called for betting to be much better than checking. If we get called by a worse hand 25% of the time, but villains only bet a worse made hand or bluff 15% of the time, then betting is way better than checking. I do not think that our opponents are going to bet a worse made hand or bluff very often at all in this spot.

How many times do I have to say that the concept of a "value bet" does not apply here? I feel like you are trolling me. I keep bringing up the 25% to illustrate that we do not need to be "value betting" for betting to be much better than checking.

Yes, we are targeting Tx, 99, 77 and such. These are hands that will likely check behind if we check, but call our bet if we bet. That is why betting is so important here. If we check, it is entirely possible that out opponents will play perfectly against us by always betting better hands and always checking worse. We want to prevent this type of disaster by betting ourselves.

The K is not a good card, but it also doesn't ruin our hand. Hands such as KT or KQ with a heart improved. But we shouldn't be up against AK since there was no cap pre. The bad thing about a K is that it might scare our opponents and kill our action. They might start folding worse made hands that they would have called on a brick.

K got it
Thx very much .

This is sort of what I was thinking after the hand, which is why I posted it. However I was just wondering if they were less likely to have a ten because they didn’t raise on the flop (seems to be how most people play a ten). I also think I got mubsy because I had seen one of the players delay raise to the river (the in position player) however I do have blockers to strong flushes that might not cap pre.

Again, I don’t disagree with any of your advice to OP. But specifically your assertion that you can only bet for value IP and never OOP is incorrect. I can tell you mean well but telling people that they can’t value bet OOP is both incorrect and inconsistent with / counterproductive to your overall advice.

So this is getting more into poker theory, but:

If you don't have the odds to value bet,
and check/calling is an even worse prospect,
doesn't that mean you should check/fold?

"fold" is different than "check-fold." The latter can have -ev (e.g., you fold the best hand) where the former always has zero ev.

Pretty much every sigh check/call on the river functions better as a bet/fold. The exception is where you check to induce a habitual bluffer

Huh? It's possible to fold the best hand in both.

If OP bets because he thinks he's ahead and wants worse hands to call, it's a value bet—regardless of whether he's betting when first to act, last to act, or somewhere in the middle.

If OP bets because he thinks he's behind and wants better hands to fold, it's a bluff—again, regardless of his position.

In this exact spot, I don't know whether OP is ahead or behind on the river. I think it's entirely possible that someone shows up with AK or QQ here. (In my $6/$12 games, not everyone caps the betting preflop with these hands—in fact, some players don't raise with them at all.) OP could also be up against a made flush or the K with some kicker other than an Ace, or any KT. So I would check for pot control and try to get to showdown cheaply.

This is very player dependent, but checking when this scare card hits might also induce a worse hand to bluff (or value bet, in the case of an AT or QT that might now think he has the best hand). So I might say that I'm checking here for pot control and possibly to induce a bluff.

A similar situation arose twice in my last session, and I checked both times. The first time, my opponent bet, I called, and he showed the nut flush, which he had slow-played on the turn. The second time, my opponent checked behind me, I showed pocket Kings, and he showed A6 for a turned pair of Aces with a weak kicker. So my river check saved me one big bet.

It's not wise to get into the habit of bet-folding rivers if you plan to try to move up eventually. Anybody decent who notices you doing this sort of thing will punish you mercilessly.

What order here would you rank by profitability bet/folding, bet/calling, check/folding, and check/calling?