Correct river decision after villian check behind...
 

Villian appears to be pretty darn aggressive, at least pre-flop. What should I do here? Check/call, bet/fold, or bet/call? I seem to really suck at these river decisions.

PokerStars 3/6 Hold'em (6 handed) internettexasholdem.com

Preflop: Hero is UTG with A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img].
<font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#CC3333">MP 3-bets</font>, <font color="#666666">4 folds</font>, Hero calls.

Flop: (7.33 SB) T[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], Q[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">MP bets</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#CC3333">MP 3-bets</font>, Hero calls.

Turn: (6.66 BB) 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, MP checks.

River: (6.66 BB) 5[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero ?</font>

Re: Correct river decision after villian check behind...
 

I bet/call. Let him call with AJ/AK here. I don't buy a bluff from him either.

If he has diamonds, they're big ones. So I think he might bet them again on the turn.

Re: Correct river decision after villian check behind...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I bet/call. Let him call with AJ/AK here. I don't buy a bluff from him either.

If he has diamonds, they're big ones. So I think he might bet them again on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this. I would never b/f in this spot against this guy but I think I wuzz out too much and c/c. Ty Danza!

Re: Correct river decision after villian check behind...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I bet/call. Let him call with AJ/AK here. I don't buy a bluff from him either.

If he has diamonds, they're big ones. So I think he might bet them again on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this. I would never b/f in this spot against this guy but I think I wuzz out too much and c/c. Ty Danza!

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, good, I b/c, but I thought it was probably wrong. Cool, thanks.

Re: Correct river decision after villian check behind...
 

he raises worse hands on the river?

Re: Correct river decision after villian check behind...
 

Ugh. Bad spot, but I think bet/call is the worst option unless the guy is a maniac or something. I like check/call &gt; bet/fold &gt; check/fold &gt; bet/call.

What is that guy checking on the turn other than a big flush draw? Not much.

Re: Correct river decision after villian check behind...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Villian appears to be pretty darn aggressive

[/ QUOTE ]

prett darn as in this hand? Or the last 50 hands? With the board paired and flushed one might turn Republican and go the conservative route...check/call. That river fits well with one possible draw. However, i like danza's thinking

[ QUOTE ]
If he has diamonds, they're big ones. So I think he might bet them again on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he checked the turn because he had no draw and he felt he was behind. Behind to a T or behind to a Q? That's not close for me. If he's got a hint of bite in him he's not scared of a T. He can't beat the Q. If he checked the turn because he was behind I'd have a hard time believing he'd raise with a worse hand on the river. So I don't give him a worse hand when he raises a river bet.

I think this is a scenario a la Sklansky where our villain will call our river bet more often than he will bet himself.

I bet/fold this river.

If I wasn't clear it's because I live in a strange fog!

Re: Correct river decision after villian check behind...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I bet/call. Let him call with AJ/AK here. I don't buy a bluff from him either.

If he has diamonds, they're big ones. So I think he might bet them again on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this. I would never b/f in this spot against this guy but I think I wuzz out too much and c/c. Ty Danza!

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, good, I b/c, but I thought it was probably wrong. Cool, thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think b/c is probably wrong Brass. For me this is either a B/F or C/C decision given that specific river card. If I dont trust this guy I check/call and let him bluff/bet with whatever hand he could have. Since I like showing down against most opponents, I am check/calling that specific river most of the time. Paying two bets on the river is too much here. In general, whenever someone runs the freecard play against you on a flush draw flop and the flush card hits the river, paying 2 bets on the river with one pair will be giving too much action. There are plenty of exceptions to this idea as there are exceptions to any strategy playing poker, but most of time you should be check/calling or bet/folding.

Re: Correct river decision after villian check behind...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I bet/call. Let him call with AJ/AK here. I don't buy a bluff from him either.

If he has diamonds, they're big ones. So I think he might bet them again on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this. I would never b/f in this spot against this guy but I think I wuzz out too much and c/c. Ty Danza!

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, good, I b/c, but I thought it was probably wrong. Cool, thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think b/c is probably wrong Brass. For me this is either a B/F or C/C decision given that specific river card. If I dont trust this guy I check/call and let him bluff/bet with whatever hand he could have. Since I like showing down against most opponents, I am check/calling that specific river most of the time. Paying two bets on the river is too much here. In general, whenever someone runs the freecard play against you on a flush draw flop and the flush card hits the river, paying 2 bets on the river with one pair will be giving too much action. There are plenty of exceptions to this idea as there are exceptions to any strategy playing poker, but most of time you should be check/calling or bet/folding.

[/ QUOTE ]

ILP you are my Hero and I have learned so much from your posts the last 18 months.

But applying any strategy that involves folding in this spot with that action against a villain of that description is just plain horrible IMO.

Re: Correct river decision after villian check behind...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I bet/call. Let him call with AJ/AK here. I don't buy a bluff from him either.

If he has diamonds, they're big ones. So I think he might bet them again on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this. I would never b/f in this spot against this guy but I think I wuzz out too much and c/c. Ty Danza!

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, good, I b/c, but I thought it was probably wrong. Cool, thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think b/c is probably wrong Brass. For me this is either a B/F or C/C decision given that specific river card. If I dont trust this guy I check/call and let him bluff/bet with whatever hand he could have. Since I like showing down against most opponents, I am check/calling that specific river most of the time. Paying two bets on the river is too much here. In general, whenever someone runs the freecard play against you on a flush draw flop and the flush card hits the river, paying 2 bets on the river with one pair will be giving too much action. There are plenty of exceptions to this idea as there are exceptions to any strategy playing poker, but most of time you should be check/calling or bet/folding.

[/ QUOTE ]

ILP you are my Hero and I have learned so much from your posts the last 18 months.

But applying any strategy that involves folding in this spot with that action against a villain of that description is just plain horrible IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was speaking in general terms Oink, I would never bet/fold this guy in my life. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] My point is most of the time this should be a Bet/fold or Check/call decision for the hero, and against most players I would gladly check/call.

Re: Correct river decision after villian check behind...
 

Ugh i hate check/call here. He checks behind AJ/AK sooooo much.

EDIT: In fact in aggro games i'm like 99% sure you are going to miss out on a lot of bets if you just call the 3-bet and check/call these river

Re: Correct river decision after villian check behind...
 

[ QUOTE ]
he raises worse hands on the river?

[/ QUOTE ]

tbh i've thought about this a lot lately, making big river folds, and i think from a game theory POV, when you include pot odds, it's not really that important in online poker. Especially nowadays when there is a lot of metagame.

Re: Correct river decision after villian check behind...
 

[ QUOTE ]
But applying any strategy that involves folding in this spot with that action against a villain of that description is just plain horrible IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize we are supposed to argue the post based on the information provided but all we have is


[ QUOTE ]
Villian appears to be pretty darn aggressive, at least pre-flop

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this really put him in the range of checking the turn and raising the river on a bluff? How often? He thinks you have a T, a Q, or a flush and he's going to pop you with air thinking you're 2+2 enough to drop the hand(which I would). That's giving this chap a lot of credit isn't it?

Re: Correct river decision after villian check behind...
 

[ QUOTE ]
What is that guy checking on the turn other than a big flush draw? Not much.

[/ QUOTE ]
99, JJ, AK without a fd. This looks like he's trying to showdown cheaply, while giving himself a free card to improve. Or, he is fps an overpair or ten and raising the river for value.

As stated earlier, he does bet his big flush draw here.

Re: Correct river decision after villian check behind...
 

[ QUOTE ]
That's giving this chap a lot of credit isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

On the contrary I think folding is giving him too much credit.

- He is unknown but seems "pretty darn" aggro
- Hero is getting 10:1 (approx)
- His line is BS
- Metagame (as Danza said)

Folding is terrible IMO

Re: Correct river decision after villian check behind...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's giving this chap a lot of credit isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

On the contrary I think folding is giving him too much credit.

- He is unknown but seems "pretty darn" aggro
- Hero is getting 10:1 (approx)
- His line is BS
- Metagame (as Danza said)

Folding is terrible IMO

[/ QUOTE ]

The hero should never be in a position to fold. Everyone can argue all they want about whats better, B/F or B/C, but thats just a waste of time becuz both this lines are clearly inferior to C/C. I could argue that even against this guy that bet/folding is probably better than bet/calling, but like I said before, that doesnt even matter cuz I'm never bet/folding this guy in my life after this action on that river card. I'm taking the best line of all, C/C.

Re: Correct river decision after villian check behind...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ugh i hate check/call here. He checks behind AJ/AK sooooo much.

EDIT: In fact in aggro games i'm like 99% sure you are going to miss out on a lot of bets if you just call the 3-bet and check/call these river

[/ QUOTE ]

If you really think check/calling any diamond river after this action is a leak than I think you may have forgotten how to play poker.

Re: Correct river decision after villian check behind...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ugh i hate check/call here. He checks behind AJ/AK sooooo much.

EDIT: In fact in aggro games i'm like 99% sure you are going to miss out on a lot of bets if you just call the 3-bet and check/call these river

[/ QUOTE ]

If you really think check/calling any diamond river after this action is a leak than I think you may have forgotten how to play poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow down ILP. First off, you've zero evidence that I knew how to play poker to begin with! And your first post did elude to this being a decision between b/f and c/c. You seem to have sided quite definitively with the c/c side given the reference to this players aggression by the OP and the actions through the hand.

May I ask why you think this villain checked the turn? 2 big diamonds? Didn't want to fire again on the come to possibly win it outright and maybe get a free show? Afraid to semi-bluff? Knows he's crushed? Yet you fear the bluff/raise on 5th?

Can you see how an up-and-comer like the peg can't figure this psychology?

Re: Correct river decision after villian check behind...
 

If an aggro player 3-bet me in MP and 3-bet the flop and then checked the turn, i weight his range to something with a lot less outs than a diamond draw.

Re: Correct river decision after villian check behind...
 

Check-call is the right play IMO. The flush card coming in tips the scales such that he's more likely to bluff with his weaker hands and less likely to call with them. You also save money when behind, of course, as I'm not entirely comfortable folding to a raise.

Re: Correct river decision after villian check behind...
 

"Wow down ILP. First off, you've zero evidence that I knew how to play poker to begin with!"

I assume most people on 2+2 know how to play poker. I just like giving people a hard time.

"And your first post did elude to this being a decision between b/f and c/c."

Let me make something clear. In general this spot will be a b/f or a c/c decision. There are plenty of exceptions to this general idea, but I dont think there is enough evidence to suggest an exception applies here.

"You seem to have sided quite definitively with the c/c side given the reference to this players aggression by the OP and the actions through the hand."

Yes I think it is very obvious that bet/folding this guy would be a terrible idea, yet bet/calling him should also feel terrible. Check/calling is the only viable line here IMO.

"May I ask why you think this villain checked the turn? 2 big diamonds? Didn't want to fire again on the come to possibly win it outright and maybe get a free show? Afraid to semi-bluff? Knows he's crushed? Yet you fear the bluff/raise on 5th?"

I have no idea why villain checked the turn. Most often it is becuz he has a draw like KJ or two diamonds. Will he have some other weak made hand? Possibly, but with no read Im convinced it is still best to assume he's on some kind of a draw the vast majority of the time and check/call the river to induce a bluff from some lesser hand and minimize our loss when he does indeed have two diamonds.

"Can you see how an up-and-comer like the peg can't figure this psychology?"

No one can figure out the psychology of this guys play cuz we dont have that strong of a read on him. In the end were still left guessing. Ive told you what I would do and why. Now its up to you to figure out what you think is the best line on the river.

Re: Correct river decision after villian check behind...
 

i think i c/c

Re: Correct river decision after villian check behind...
 

[ QUOTE ]
If an aggro player 3-bet me in MP and 3-bet the flop and then checked the turn, i weight his range to something with a lot less outs than a diamond draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not just check/calling the river cuz dimaonds came in although that is a big reason. Check/calling the river also induces a bluff from KJ/J9s and it saves us money when villain has a flush. Im not convinced yet that this guy cant have KJ or J9s in this spot.

Re: Correct river decision after villian check behind...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have no idea why villain checked the turn. Most often it is becuz he has a draw like KJ or two diamonds. Will he have some other weak made hand? Possibly, but with no read Im convinced it is still best to assume he's on some kind of a draw the vast majority of the time and check/call the river to induce a bluff from some lesser hand and minimize our loss when he does indeed have two diamonds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, his hand feels like KJ (or J9s?) or a diamond draw to me most often, and it's correct to check against both of those (though for different reasons, of course). Something like KQ wouldn't shock me, but I think he'll usually talk himself into putting the value bet in for you if you check. Another possible hand is The Nuts (QQ, TT, QT), especially from an unknown opponent. So all of this is leaning very heavily toward a check and a call. The only hand that you really want to bet against is like AK, which (1) would have to have had put a lot of bad money in on the flop, (2) might not call if you bet; (3) might decide to turn its hand into a bluff if you check.

Re: Correct river decision after villian check behind...
 

[ QUOTE ]
If an aggro player 3-bet me in MP and 3-bet the flop and then checked the turn, i weight his range to something with a lot less outs than a diamond draw.

[/ QUOTE ]

Danza,

The thing is if he has diamonds, he will probably have the nut flush draw given the cards on the board. So even a player who likes to win every pot may check behind on the turn because he still has some showdown value against the other draws on this board (KJ, smaller diamond draws).

Re: Correct river decision after villian check behind...
 

I see your point, IME an aggro player will fire the turn here with big diamonds, that's why I'm ok bet/calling this river.

It's really player dependent IMO. I also find myself putting in more bets vs. a more aggro player on the flop/turn FWIW.

As is i like betting the river. Unless he will value bet a hand like 99 for me. Then I might check.

99 is calling btw if it's at the river. Any pair is. IMO AJ calls here and AK does too.

I think this is just a case of how people play at you maybe. When I get 3-bet on this flop, it's a crappy free card play a lot with a hand that wants a showdown.

If this is CO/BU then I could see J9 in his range a lot more too. I just feel like a bare flush draw like A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]5[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] checks this turn but if he DID have J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] he would be the turn a lot more.

Re: Correct river decision after villian check behind...
 

Interesting spot - I'm largely with ILP in that I think many more hands that we beat will bet then will call.

Unless this guy is a total tool (3/6 so ~60% possible...) he's betting Tx/KQ/KK/AA/AdKd/AdQd/AdJd on the turn. That said an "aggro" stars 3/6 player can easily show up with ~Ad6d here, and they might take villains line recognizing that they are A) almost certainly behind and B) have zero FE against hero.

This is actually a tougher flop spot than it looks at first notice, and I'm tempted to cap and keep leading against a player I read as overly aggro - that type of player might well not 3-bet Tx/QQ-AA on this flop, so the 3-bet tells me I'm more likely to be ahead.

Re: Correct river decision after villian check behind...
 

yeah but capping the flop and leading the turn = us calling down because we put him on big diamonds ya hurd?

Re: Correct river decision after villian check behind...
 

[ QUOTE ]
yeah but capping the flop and leading the turn = us calling down because we put him on big diamonds ya hurd?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, and I'm okay with that against the villains who I would cap/lead (and FWIW, were I hero, this villain probably put himself on that list for me...)

Lately, I've also been experimenting with leading non-D turns here after calling the 3-bet, not sure how I like it.

Re: Correct river decision after villian check behind...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I see your point, IME an aggro player will fire the turn here with big diamonds, that's why I'm ok bet/calling this river.

It's really player dependent IMO. I also find myself putting in more bets vs. a more aggro player on the flop/turn FWIW.

As is i like betting the river. Unless he will value bet a hand like 99 for me. Then I might check.

99 is calling btw if it's at the river. Any pair is. IMO AJ calls here and AK does too.

I think this is just a case of how people play at you maybe. When I get 3-bet on this flop, it's a crappy free card play a lot with a hand that wants a showdown.

If this is CO/BU then I could see J9 in his range a lot more too. I just feel like a bare flush draw like A[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]5[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] checks this turn but if he DID have J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] he would be the turn a lot more.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like to start by assuming that my opponents play well. Against someone who plays well, the most likely hands given this flop/turn action are A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]J [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] and A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], followed by K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] (though that's more likely to bet the turn IMO). And make no mistake, checking the turn is the right play with the AJ/AK [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] barring unusual opponent reads.

Re: Correct river decision after villian check behind...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I like to start by assuming that my opponents play well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand where you're coming from, but it's Stars 3/6. Why on god's green earth would you assume that? (I mean, I think I'm one of the better regs in that game, and I play no better than average on my best days...)

Re: Correct river decision after villian check behind...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I like to start by assuming that my opponents play well.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand where you're coming from, but it's Stars 3/6. Why on god's green earth would you assume that? (I mean, I think I'm one of the better regs in that game, and I play no better than average on my best days...)

[/ QUOTE ]

Because I think that by starting from the assumption that my opponents play well, I minimize the number of mistakes that I make against opponents that do in fact play well, while still capturing the profits from the solid majority of the mistakes that opponents who do not play well might make against me. BTW, assuming that opponents play well does not mean that I'm playing a conservative, solid strategy against them since playing well includes mixing your play, and I therefore need to mix my play in return. I'm still making thin bluffs, thin raises, thin calldowns, and -- once every now and then -- thin folds.

Of course, we can and should deviate from this once we develop solid reads.