This was a 5/5 game played in the city. It was being played 7 handed at the time.

The BTN was playing a bit loose, taking speculative hands a bit too far and all in all just gambling a bit more than warranted. He was a bit erratic with his spewyness though checking where you would think a player like him would bet. He seemed to spew call more than spew bet if that makes sense but would definitely pounce on suspected weakness. Till now though, I hadn't seen him make a river "play" but with his erratic behavior I wasn't sold he wasn't capable of it...

I had lost about half my stack maybe 10-15min prior to this hand. It may or may not have an affect on peoples image of me but I typically don't show many/any signs of tilt when I play. I think I played one hand since then and won preflop with a raise.

CO (me): $850
BTN: $1200

Folds around to me and I open to $25 with 76. The BTN calls and the blinds fold out.

($60) Flop comes Q65

I bet $40 and the BTN calls.

($140) Turn comes 6

I check planning on c/r'ng...BTN checks behind.

($140) River comes the T

I bet $90, the BTN raises to $250, I....

Fold. What else can he have but a flush? You've seen him pounce on weakness, but your river lead isn't weak. You described up to now he's been pretty passive with his spew and he played this hand like a flushdraw, passively. You're getting 2-1, so is he bluffing more than 1/3 of the time? Too bad river wasn't 7h.

Reminds me of a hand between Benefield and Doyle Brunson, where Doyle raised his twopair on the river (KJ back then) and Benefield folded 65 with trip 6s.
Actually you're getting 3:1. But that my still not be enough. His hand just looks so much like a flush.

Fold.

I think with these stacks and this opponent I like potting it on flop and turn to set up a little more than potsized bet on the river instead of trying to c/r turn.

well, you say he spew calls more than spew bets, so i agree with H2T and def prefer betting the turn

Wouldn't he bet turn w a Q? So folding's fine. But in practice, I never fold with a decent hand vs a spaz getting 3 to 1.

Wait, isn't $160 into a $320 pot 2-1 on our money? I had this same discussion in the poker theory forum and thought I had it cleared up, but now you guys got me confused again... I know this is remedial, but if we count our $160 call in this equation, wouldn't that mean we're getting 2-1 on a $160 pot?

pot on the riv is $480 (pot 140 + hero bet 90 + villain raise 250) w/ $160 to call so 3:1 so we need to be good 25% of the time to break even

I'd fold riv jloc

also, I'd just pot the turn again - I think going for the c/r just makes the pot awkward to play.

Lol at my maths... 3:1. I think you have to call, although you're probably beat. I agree, bet the turn to price out the flush draw, and he's not giving you credit for trips here.

given the odds and the idiot factor, I'd call.

Based off this, I'd be barreling the turn almost always expecting him to come along with Qx most of the time.

What I don't like about the CR here is that we make our hand look very strong by doing so... but the stack a donk line (even though its not AI) often works very well against skeptical fish. So it maybe the CR plan is fine, not sure.

Me too. But I'm a bit of a station lately.

word. i hate getting bluffed.

I was thinking about it more and I def really prefer just barreling the turn instead of going for the c/r. you make your money against these passive calling station livedonks by giving them the chance they want to call you down instead of giving them an opportunity to make a weird check and lose a street of value to them. plus live I feel like you run into a lot more a6o/k6s/69o type hands verse online so I'm not really sure that I'd even *want* to commit myself on the turn 170bb deep (since any decent-sized turn c/r would leave us with a ~half pot bet on the riv... basically committing ourselves no matter the river card)... unless we were planning on putting half our stack in and then c/folding any flush/straight/Q getting 3:1? bleh.

I'm just rambling now.

I find it hilarious that many are saying/thinking exactly as I was at the time in regards to me being smoked here on the river yet many still saying, "call cause those odds are juicy". I'm just not sure if the spaz meter reaches the 25% I need but maybe...

Also to the c/r turn detractors, do you think that line is just bad or is a bit of results oriented-ness kicking in here (asking not judging)?

I think that if you picked up he has a Q/whatever and was gonna fire if checked to then yea I love the c/r because of stack sizes. But without that read and from your description of villain he's checking behind almost every time so we need to bet.

I think pricing out the draws on the turn against a normally passive guy who chases or overvalues pairs is best, although if you've seen him pounce on weakness it's not bad to try to intice him, just risky. I would think you should have a good reason to take that risk, like an accompanying physical tell, or know he's on tilt and is very likely to fire against you this time.

My biggest problem in low stakes is betting both streets, then the draw completes on the river and the fish (or sometimes decent player) bets. What do I do then, pay him off?

I'm not saying that a turn c/r is bad, just that against this type of guy I generally thinking barreling your hand is a bit better. don't think I'm being result oriented - I'm mostly just going off you describing the guy as erratic as I think the more erratic a player is the more I just play ABC against them because it's so hard to know what they're going to do at any point in the hand cause they aren't even really thinking about what they're doing anyway. meh maybe this is wrong? I dunno.

imo barreling allows us to:

a) pump value from Qs/draws/random crap that he might check behind. I think you get more value from Qs by betting again because most live players are way more likely to call you down 3 streets w/ KQ (or whatever) than they are to call a turn c/r and stack off with it. unless you have a really crazy image. a turn c/r will collect a turn bet but then just tend to blow live players off their tp whereas betting turn + river collects two bets from them (and still gives us the opportunity to stack them on the riv)

b) not put a huge % of our stack in and then have to check/guess on some ugly river cards getting good odds. if we keep betting and get raised we can just fold (not against this guy probably, but an option against some live nits), flat and reeval river or decide to go with it and shove. if we c/r then he can check behind (bad) or we pretty much commit ourselves to the hand. I think barreling just gives us more options.

btw I was assuming that the "ideal" turn action for going for the c/r would be villain bets ~100 and hero c/r to 325-350ish meaning about half of hero's stack is in on the turn. if you were planning a smaller c/r then I am all ears but the smaller we c/r then the more likely it is that villains calls with any fd/random straight draw and we have to do more guessing on the riv.

I don't think you played the hand poorly by any means, just thought that it was interesting that a different line might be a bit more +EV.

youve been saying that for 4 years

there's a semi-accurate school of thought among online players that a small river lead on this board could be weakness, but I wouldn't view it that way, especially in a live game.

He can/would slowplay a boat like 55 as well as river a flush here. But river raises are really strong in my experience in live play (and online these days).

Especially b/c people's natural tendency is to station, so these aren't good bluffing spots.

I played a live session recently where I check-raised 2 rivers in 2 hours. I wasn't bluffing either time. I thought my play was too obvious. Got called in each spot.

ive discussed this awesome/crazy phenomenon before. live you see like 1 river cr every 3000 hands and its always the nuts and it still always gets called.

I just "knew" I was beat for all the reasons stated by everyone within the thread.

I called for all the reasons stated by everyone within the thread....he had 97