late to the end of the party.

Imo, there are 3 scenarios for villain

A) he flopped monster (boat or trips)
B) he is drawing (SD or FD or both)
C) he has a middling value hand like 99 or 66 or 7x

The reason I like a turn bet has to do with extracting value from B and C, so I can get behind a turn bet here.

However, once the river bricks out and he checks, the questions become: #1) would this V c/r bluff shove missed draws? #2) Would V call with his middling hands? If the answer to these questions is no (or leans more towards no) then we check back the river.

Now, the water gets muddied if V is capable of c/r bluff shoving X% of the time. Then you have to do some maths to figure out if he does this enough for our call to be profitable. Based on the OP, even though we "suspect" he makes moves we have no real concrete observation that he does.

Adding everything up, I think I just check back the river. If I had enough HH and observation with V to know he would/could c/r bluff shove me then I would bet river to induce him to bluff shove me. But based on what we have, I don't think I have enough info to try to induce a c/r bluff shove and so I'm fine checking back the river.

So wouldn't the river then be a clear bet/fold?

Well, OP stated that he "suspects" V is capable of making moves. I'm a big fan of only taking bet/fold lines vs the ABC transparent players (which are 90%+ of our villains). Most of our villains just don't have it in them to c/r bluff shove. But in this case, it seems that V "might". So, it is this uncertainty that will lead me to just check back the river.

Moral: players do some dumb sh**t at 1/2...

If V is calling 40% of the time on river, Folding 55%, and CRAI 5% a bet is obviously +eV. Yet he leans toward not calling a bet with his middling hands given these numbers.

I Don't Think We Have Enough Info To Do Any Thing Besides Check Back On River. Everyone Is Just Speculating And Hero Himself Doesn't Know. As Played B/f

Do we have the observational data to conclude that V is only c/r shoving 5% of the time here?

Do we have the data to conclude V will call with middling hands 40% of the time?

The river bet-size played right into Villain's hands. It's a big CR. But if you really have a handle on him, then I assume the bet-size was made to induce, giving you huge cajones.

I'd just check it back.

RESULTS


While not expecting a crai when I bet, I had it in the back of my mind that it could happen and that it could suck. So I went into the tank. Honestly, I wanted to call immiediately because of the fact that I'd seen him being aggressive on numerous occasions already and the fact that the 5000 draws on the board all missed. But then I thought about how I've never been bluff raised on the river in a 1/2 game ever. So, I rethought everything again. Is it more likely that he's a player who will c/c, c/c, crai a flopped boat/quads or is it more likely that he's a aggro donk who is just used to people rolling over when he comes over the top? I need him to be an aggro donk about 25% of the time and I have a hard time folding once I've bet that river.

Soooo.....

wp

Actually, it depends. If Villain seems smart enough to realize that he has an aggressive image and had better have it the next time he tries this play, then it does not change my decision. If he just seems like a mindless aggro monkey, then it does, and I'd bet to induce a raise which I would then call.

I agree with most of the non-bolded in this post but the bolded is either bad logic or stuff I disagree with.

When I bet the river in position, there are 2 important questions I ask:

1) When I get raised, how likely is it that I've induced a bluff, versus a value raise?

2) Will we get called by worse on the river often enough that we can be wrong about #1 and still have the bet be +EV?

If I think I've induced a bluff often enough that I should be bet/calling, then of course I bet/call.

Also, if the answer to #2 is yes, then I bet and am indifferent to whether I call or fold (which usually means I bet/call but sometimes I bet/fold in those spots).

In this case, because of Villain's image, I can't be confident in the answers to either of these questions. I can't be confident about #1 because of what I just said above: I don't know whether Villain seems smart enough to know that he had better have it this time. Also, we are repping AK and Villain has raised despite the possibility that we have TPTK and won't fold.

More importantly, the logic in the above is backwards to me. We don't care whether Villain is capable of showing up with a slowplayed monster. We care about whether Villain is capable of showing up with something other than a slowplayed monster. Most Villains in this spot aren't. The likelihood that we get raised is small, I agree with that. But the problem is that when the raise does come, we don't know how much of that small percentage is the small percentage of the time Villain slowplays and how much is an elaborate bluff.

Now, if Villain called with worse a large percentage of the time, then I'd agree we should bet and not worry about the raise. But it's not even clear how much of the time Villain will call our value bet. If we had AQ in this spot instead of the time instead of AK, I think a lot of people would be advocating a turn bet to represent AK and fold out hands like 7x or underpairs, which now people are claiming we can get 2 streets from on the turn and river. In reality I think a lot of the hands we beat that make it to the river are busted draws, and even if Villain has marginal showdown value, he might fold to the third barrel.

And this is why we really need to know how much Villain will bluff before betting. I think Villain's non-calling range is weighted towards hands that need to bluff to win, but if we don't know how much of the time that he has air he will actually check/raise bluff (instead of just check/folding or bluff-leading), then we are setting ourselves up to make a huge mistake on the river by betting.

EDIT: I started this post before seeing results. I think the fact that you tanked is a leak. If you are betting, you should know in advance whether you are calling or folding. Nevertheless, nice hand.

Obviously not. But you used the term "leaning". Leaning technically means greater than 50%. Even if he's only slightly leaning toward folding/CRAI, a bet on the river still makes sense.

Like I said before, if his distribution of actions is (hypothetically)

75% fold
20% call
5% CRAI

a value bet should be made.

I think Villains CRAI very infrequently in this situation. There's nothing "observational" or in my experience which suggests that number is any higher than 10% at the most. I have plenty of experience with players fitting V's description making hero calls to triple barrels from players fitting OP's description on these type of board run outs.

Hmmm.

Let's quickly analyze the percentages that Ray Horton posted.

75% of the time Villain folds, and we make the same as we would have made by checking, which is a wash, so we ignore that.

20% of the time Villain calls $95, and we win (.2)(95) = $19.

Now let's weigh that $19 against what happens if we make a mistake on the river.

Let's start by saying we call when we should have folded. Then, compared to checking, we lose 95 + 228 = 323. If that happens 5% of the time, we have lost (.05)(323) = 16.15. So if these percentages are correct, then we would rather bet/call than check back, even if Villain is never bluff-raising. However, if Villain only calls 15% of the time instead of 20%, now we're looking at +14.25 against -16.15. So this is a razor-thin spot where a small error in the percentages totally screws us.

Now let's say we fold when we should have called. Then, compared to checking, we lose 95 + 196 = 291. If that happens 5% of the time, we have lost (.05)(291) = 14.55. Again, if Villain only calls 15% of the time instead of 20%, now we're better off having checked back.

Obviously this analysis misses the upside of making the correct decision, but the point I'm making is that if we don't know how often we are making the correct decision, this is a very thin spot and we might as well check back (since a free look at Villain's hand could help us make better decisions in the future).

EDIT: But, as I said before, if we know that we will often make the correct decision, now we have a clear bet.

CMV,

I admit it's close. V has to be super nutted on flop to check three times. Or have H soulread for a thin value bettor. Most Vs don't get super nutted and aren't soulreaders. I don't think a check back is terrible. It's also probably the better play for a lot of situations where, as good players, we are trying to minimize variance and possibly forgoing some marginal +eV situations in order to manage our stacks and bankrolls more effectively.

Knows he will make the right decision because he is Spikeraw22!

WOW Jh6h great hand !!

If V has quads, FH or trips, utg is a perfect position OTT: utg check, Hero raise, BNT call .... utg reraise. And with trips vs 2 players, you don't want to see a heart on the river. c/r on River is perfect (with quads or FH) only if Hero or bnt are Superagros.

WP spikeraw22

I don't think checking and looking at V's hand is going to tell us much as we have a pretty clear grasp on villains range getting to this river. The little information we gain is not going to be worth more than the value bet on the river + potential spaz. The majority of the time we'll see busted draws and weak SDV hands, and have no concrete information on how he'd play these facing a third barrel.

The %'s are kinda off, I don't think V folds 75% of the time and his 5% c/r with better might be true, but I think he has way >5% (And we only need like >1.25% to call) check raise with bluffs + he calls with worse some % of the time so bet/call is completely justified. Not really a thin value bet at all imo. We beat pretty much his entire calling range, and his c/r is likely very unbalanced towards bluffs. If you like information, betting river will yield more than checking.

Good hand. Well played. Villain's line does not make sense if he has a monster. But then, I think that all the time and then get owned by some fish with the nuts. :-/

I kind of can't believe villain didn't raise his flush draw OTF. what a fish

I love getting the blank stare when you make a call OTR! Aggrodonks are the best.

Still not sure I like the line. Without more information, I would have folded to the c/r but then, I would have played the turn and river differently.

Good thread.

Which brings up the point, as the non-aggressor pre-flop, this kind of flop would be an awesome board to semi-bluff raise with a FD/SD.

We shouldn't jump to the conclusion that Villain is a fish because he didn't semi-bluff the flop. It's entirely possible he was planning to semi-bluff the turn until the K hit and smacked our range. Then maybe he check/raises the river when we bet because he assumes we would have checked back with a pair at some point in this hand (so he's raising because he thinks it's an air vs. air situation).

It's still not that good, but there is no need to semi-bluff every flop you hit a flush draw on in order to not be a fish.

you cant be serious

His line stinks, but a guy that is going to call down a FD, then c/rai on the river is the same guy that can c/c with quads and c/rai on the river.

Agree although the former is far more frequent than the latter.

I agree with that.