High Card Only Showdown
 

High card only at the showdown:

Under what circumstances do you bet the river with nothing but a high card in your hand? I have won a few pots this way after falling one card short of the nut flush or straight.

Is the decision to fold or call mostly based on pot size or your read on your opponent?

Re: High Card Only Showdown
 

[ QUOTE ]

Is the decision to fold or call mostly based on pot size or your read on your opponent?

[/ QUOTE ]

these two factors should play into just about every decision you make... only difference is you leave out the factor of the strength in your hand because you only beat a bluff...

but yes, those two factors are basically what's left... I think the read on the opponent is very, very important here... whether a player is capable of firing 3 shots off w/ nothing is a definite qualitative note i will make on a player...

Re: High Card Only Showdown
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is the decision to fold or call mostly based on pot size or your read on your opponent?

[/ QUOTE ]

Almost entirely on my read of the opponent, as well as what I believe he thinks of me. If I've been pretty straightforward during this session about betting the river for value vs. checking through (or check/folding) without a hand, then I think I'm more likely to induce a weak made hand to fold by betting the river. This is especially true if I've been showing down a lot of big hands. I will also occasionally value bet a hand like AK or AQ against a player that I know will pay off with a worse high card hand, or when my image is so bad that an otherwise good player probably will, too.

Honestly, I very rarely bet the river with just a high card. If I see a showdown without a pair it's usually because the river checks through or I check/call an opponent who's holding a busted draw. Or because I've taken the lead throughout the hand with a busted draw of my own, and figure the only way I can win is to bet.

Re: High Card Only Showdown
 

[ QUOTE ]
I will also occasionally value bet a hand like AK or AQ against a player that I know will pay off with a worse high card hand

[/ QUOTE ]

There's A's in both examples. How low will you go? What's the lowest high card you'll bet? K Q J ?

[ QUOTE ]
or when my image is so bad that an otherwise good player probably will, too

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you elaborate. I'm not sure what you mean by "bad" table image. Does this mean an image of being a skilled player who wouldn't showdown with garbage. Or a maniac table image, unpredictable, liable to play any hand?

Re: High Card Only Showdown
 

[ QUOTE ]
There's A's in both examples. How low will you go? What's the lowest high card you'll bet? K Q J ?

[/ QUOTE ]

There's a big difference between betting an AK unimproved for value vs. an AQ or an AT or A2. If I'm betting the hand for value, it's because both of my hole cards are going to play and I'm expecting to be called by a worse, unimproved ace some fair amount of the time. I can't think of an instance where I would bet a K high or worse for value.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you elaborate. I'm not sure what you mean by "bad" table image. Does this mean an image of being a skilled player who wouldn't showdown with garbage. Or a maniac table image, unpredictable, liable to play any hand?

[/ QUOTE ]

The latter. If I've been taking a lot of bad beats on the river, or getting caught in several recent bluffs, then some of my opponents are going to think I'm a maniac. Even the regular ones who I've logged thousands of hands against might just think I'm on tilt. So in those instances, I might bet a good ace on the river in the hopes of being called by a worse ace (or K high every so often).

Re: High Card Only Showdown
 

Lots of times it comes back to basics.

I'll bet or raise my hand if I think there is a good enough chance that Villain will fold a better hand, or call with a worse hand.

I'll call a bet if I think that my hand fares well against Villain's possible range.

In the case of just having an Ace high hand, when do I bet? I'll bet against players who often call to the river with bottom or middle pair, but fold the river if they don't catch two pair. (But this is a bluff that can be done with any two cards) I'll bet against someone who calls all the way with overcards but folds the river, if I think that my kicker can't withstand a showdown. And I'll bet with an Ace high with a good kicker (like a Q or a J) against someone who will call down with weaker Ace high hands.

I've also been incorporating into my game some bluffs based on game theory against some better opponents - but I'm still learning how to best do this.

But in all cases, I'll only bet if it makes sense. If my bet comes out of nowhere, or has reason to not be believable, I'm less likely to do it. For example, if I raised a draw on the flop, and then checked behind on the turn to take a free card, and now it is checked to me on the river, I'm less likely to fire that bet.

Again, it's something that is so situational based on the play of the hand, the size of the pot, and your read on your opponents.

I'll call with an Ace high hand when I think that there's a good enough chance that the bettor has something worse. Like if the flop had both a possible straight draw and a flush draw that both didn't come in by the river, there's a higher chance that he's bluffing.

Again, it can be very read dependent. Some people, if they bet the whole way on a draw, will ALWAYS fire a pure bluff on the river when they miss. Call them more often. Others will almost never pure bluff on the river, so call them very rarely.

As for how far down do you go in high card value? I'm a bit more likely to bet with LOWER cards, since they have no showdown value. This is even more likely if I have position, since my opponent has already checked, showing a bit of weakness.

I've called down with King high a couple of times against maniacs. And people who push draws hard and bluff the river when they miss. And I've even called down with Queen high (QJs) a couple of times after I missed my draw, but the flop was draw heavy and the pot was huge and it was heads up and my lone opponent was very bluff happy, and there was a good enough chance he was betting a 98s straight draw type of hand.

One piece of advice I'd give - never overcall with just a high card hand. If someone bets the river, and someone else calls, the chances of your AK unimproved winning the pot is next to nil. The pot would have to be huge for you to even consider it.

Re: High Card Only Showdown
 

[ QUOTE ]
I can't think of an instance where I would bet a K high or worse for value.

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember a hand that James posted long ago that he bluffed with JT unimproved on the river. He got called - and won!

God bless opponents who will let me value bet my Jack high! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: High Card Only Showdown
 

[ QUOTE ]

Honestly, I very rarely bet the river with just a high card. If I see a showdown without a pair it's usually because the river checks through or I check/call an opponent who's holding a busted draw. Or because I've taken the lead throughout the hand with a busted draw of my own, and figure the only way I can win is to bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

i follows this advice as well. Occasionally I will bet the river with A high. This occurs when I've read my opponent's hand well and the board specifically makes it likely that my opponent probably only has high cards as well...and I always have AK or AQ in these situations.

Re: High Card Only Showdown
 

[ QUOTE ]
As for how far down do you go in high card value? I'm a bit more likely to bet with LOWER cards, since they have no showdown value. This is even more likely if I have position, since my opponent has already checked, showing a bit of weakness.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not betting for value, though, it is betting as a bluff. I've bluffed rivers with 3 high before (yes, really [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]), but I'm obviously not hoping for a showdown there.

Re: High Card Only Showdown
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
As for how far down do you go in high card value? I'm a bit more likely to bet with LOWER cards, since they have no showdown value. This is even more likely if I have position, since my opponent has already checked, showing a bit of weakness.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not betting for value, though, it is betting as a bluff. I've bluffed rivers with 3 high before (yes, really [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]), but I'm obviously not hoping for a showdown there.

[/ QUOTE ]

True - that's really what I meant though. I'll use the lower ones to bluff, since I can never win a showdown. If I have AK and it's checked to me, I'm more likely to check it behind and hope - my hand does have at least some showdown value here.

Re: High Card Only Showdown
 

As everyone has said, it depends on your opponent (and potsize). Usually you need a pretty substantial read to value bet A high and it depends a lot on how your opponent views you and how you view your opponent.

Re: High Card Only Showdown
 

For all of you who said you would bet the showdown with nothing but high cards, such as AK or AQ, what’s your response to being bet into?

Will you call a bet with nothing but A high or K high?

What’s the max number of bets you’d call with this kind of holding?

From an odds standpoint, if the pot is large enough are you ever so married to the pot (and is it ever strategically correct) to call at showdown no matter the number of bets and no matter the hand you hold? Even if the betting is capped?

Lastly, because your actions might result in you having to showdown a nothing hand, do you take your own table image into consideration here? And the impact on that image this exposure will generate.

Do you worry that now they'll see that you're a fraud and a phony? And the next time you find yourself in this or a similar situation those who've been paying attention might be more likely to put you on a bluff.

Re: High Card Only Showdown
 

[ QUOTE ]
For all of you who said you would bet the showdown with nothing but high cards, such as AK or AQ, what’s your response to being bet into?

Will you call a bet with nothing but A high or K high?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is obviously opponent dependent. If he's a maniac or the type to bluff a lot, then I've called with A high and even K high a fair bit. If he's the type to semi-bluff draws all the way and then fire on the river as a last ditch effort, then I look at the board to see what types of draws he might be pushing as decided how my hand fares against those missed draws. There have been a couple of times I've picked off a missed straight draw on a low board with a Q high. (Villain was value pushing a draw into multiple opponents, and I was playing a QJs flush draw, and on the river, he bet, everyone folded, so it was heads up in a big pot, and I figured the chances of him holding T8s or 98 on a 764-2-2 board were good enough to look him up)

[ QUOTE ]
What’s the max number of bets you’d call with this kind of holding?

[/ QUOTE ]

One. Almost always. If someone bets the river, and someone else raises, they are almost always beating Ace high. Like, way more than 99% of the time. Add this to the fact that the odds you are getting from the pot to pick off a bluff are now cut in half, and it's almost never right to call two bets cold on the river with Ace high.

Also, as I mentioned before, It's never a good idea to overcall on the river with Ace high. Even though the bettor might be bluffing, anyone who calls him will at least have a hand that has some value. And that hand will almost always beat Ace High.

[ QUOTE ]
From an odds standpoint, if the pot is large enough are you ever so married to the pot (and is it ever strategically correct) to call at showdown no matter the number of bets and no matter the hand you hold? Even if the betting is capped?

[/ QUOTE ]

In theory, the pot can get big enough that I'm calling very light. If I'm playing in a 1/2 game, and someone dumped $10,000,000 in the pot, then I'm calling to a showdown with 9-high. Even if two guys cap the betting on the river. The chances of them bluffing with lower hands than my 9-high are probably better than the 1.25 million-to-1 that I need to call profitably.

With that said, in practical terms, I don't think it's ever going to be big enough in a real game to justify it. Remember, with every bet/raise that goes in on the river, two things happen:

- the bettor/raiser is saying he has a stronger and stronger hand, so the chances that your Ace high is best go down, and
- the odds that you are getting from the pot go down, so you are getting worse payback for trying to pick off that bluff.

For example, let's say it's 3-handed on the river in a 13 big bet pot. Someone bets and someone calls, and you have Ace high, King kicker. The pot is laying you 15-1 odds, so you only have to win the pot just slightly more than 6% of the time to make a profit.

But in that same pot, if the first player bets and the second player now raises, the pot is laying you 16-2 odds. So now you have to win the pot over 11% of the time to make it profitable. (and that's if the first player doesn't reraise)

So you have to be MORE likely to win this pot than the first one because of the worse odds you are getting. But given the action (namely the raise by the second player) you are actually LESS likely to be winning it.

[ QUOTE ]
Lastly, because your actions might result in you having to showdown a nothing hand, do you take your own table image into consideration here? And the impact on that image this exposure will generate.

Do you worry that now they'll see that you're a fraud and a phony? And the next time you find yourself in this or a similar situation those who've been paying attention might be more likely to put you on a bluff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something that I read early on in my playing career that made sense to me was along the lines of:

"Don't put your effort into trying to create a specific image at the table. Instead, put your effort into understanding what type of image your natural play is presenting, and understanding how others will then play against you"

So I rarely adjust my play to create an image. (I'm not saying I never do it, just rarely) So if I think a bluff may be profitable, I'm not afraid to show down a nothing hand. What I'm paying attention to is that if I have shown down nothing hands a couple of times recently, because I got caught bluffing, then I'm less likely to try a bluff in the near future, because it's less likely to work. But on the flip side, I'm more likely to value bet a little lighter (like maybe middle pair on the river) since I'm more likely to get called with weaker hands.