how do you like this river fold?

[jjacky]

i had an argument about the following hand (which surprised me a bit because i thought the correct play is rather obvious).

77/0/0,4 WTS 45 0,8 Riveraggro; unknown number of hands

Party Poker 1/2 Hold'em (5 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

Preflop: Crazy is BB with K, K.
1 fold, MP calls, 1 fold, SB completes,Crazy raises, MP calls, SB calls.

Flop: (6 SB) 4, Q, J (3 players)
SB checks, Crazy bets, MP calls, SB folds.

Turn: (4 BB) 7 [color=#0000FF](2 players)</font>
Crazy bets, MP calls.

River: (6 BB) 5 (2 players)
Crazy bets</font>, MP raises, Crazy folds.

Final Pot: 9 BB

[HoneyBadger]

I'd say it's horrible. It might be just bad also, depending on your read. I think you're good here more than 10% of the time. This guy might pull some sort of slowplay on you with AQ. They always seem to assume (hope?) you have AK when you raise PF. Some players like to bluff on the flush as a last hope, perhaps he had KT and was drawing to the straight. He obviously can't call then, so a bluff raise on the flush is his only hope of winning. If you fold here, they will raise you in the future regardless of having the flush or not. I would never lay this down getting 1:9.

(in other words: for this to be clearly correct, weighing in your table image, he'd have to have you beat say 14 out of 15 times. I just don't see that happening. Even if you're 95% sure you're beat, even then, it's not a big mistake to call. It doesn't cost you that much, only a tiny fraction of a bet. And come on, can you honestly be 95% sure here? Can you ever be?)

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
I just don't see that happening. Even if you're 95% sure you're beat, even then, it's not a big mistake to call. It doesn't cost you that much, only a tiny fraction of a bet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, it is a mistake to call a 9:1 bet if you believe you are a 1 in 20 dog. Of course, it's probably not a big mistake, since calling or folding wrong on the end in one specific pot is rarely a big mistake. But the mistakes will add up over time on one's bankroll.



[ QUOTE ]
And come on, can you honestly be 95% sure here? Can you ever be?)

[/ QUOTE ]

One can never be sure of anything. However, always calling when the pot is offering at least 9:1 because "one never knows" is a pretty big leak.

[crunchy1]

jjacky,

[ QUOTE ]
77/0/0,4 WTS 45 0,8 Riveraggro; unknown number of hands

[/ QUOTE ]

With this read - I'm viewing the player as unknown. I'm never folding an overpair to an unknown on the river, HU, for only one BB. Especially on a scare card that's very likely to be a bluff.

Sometimes you just have to pay it off. I think you'd be surprised at how often you're going to win these pots at the lower limits.

[Homer315]

I think, if you are certain you will fold the river to a raise, why not check and call? You will save a bet when villian's draw made it, and induce someone with a Q or J to bet the river. I suggest this only if you insist on folding to the river raise.

[HoneyBadger]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, it is a mistake to call a 9:1 bet if you believe you are a 1 in 20 dog. Of course, it's probably not a big mistake, since calling or folding wrong on the end in one specific pot is rarely a big mistake. But the mistakes will add up over time on one's bankroll.

One can never be sure of anything. However, always calling when the pot is offering at least 9:1 because "one never knows" is a pretty big leak.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, maybe I was exagerating there. But you do agree this is a clear call right? Also, there's a big difference between being 80, 90 or 95 percent sure, and people just can't guess that well. 10% combined for the chance he is either pure bluffing, or is making a play on a top pair of queens? I'm willing to take that chance.

[jjacky]

i don't like a river check against passive (or unknown) opponents because i think i get called by top pair, second pair or some kind of crap pretty often. therefor a check would lose too much value imo.

[shpanko]

I could only make this fold if I had hundreds of hands on the opponent and his extremely low AF was totally reliable. You said that the number of hands on the opponent is unknown. I agree that he looks very pssive but calling down here vs a slightly unknown player is going to be +EV in the long run. I can't tell you how many times I've had a passive looking player raise me on the river, I make a crying call, and the villain turns over AQ or some [censored] like that. You are definitely good here 1 in 10 times against a relatively unknown (though seemingly passive) player.

[jjacky]

[ QUOTE ]
jjacky,

[ QUOTE ]
77/0/0,4 WTS 45 0,8 Riveraggro; unknown number of hands

[/ QUOTE ]

With this read - I'm viewing the player as unknown. I'm never folding an overpair to an unknown on the river, HU, for only one BB. Especially on a scare card that's very likely to be a bluff.

Sometimes you just have to pay it off. I think you'd be surprised at how often you're going to win these pots at the lower limits.

[/ QUOTE ]


hi crunchy,

i have not played the hand. the information is from another forum, with the number of hands missing. i assume that the sample size is not very big but should still have some weight (whatever that means [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]).

to your advice: i think so too and hoped to read something like that. laying down big hands in heads up situations with a big pot for one bet on the river shouldn't be proper strategy in limit hold'em.

[Chipspin]

Horrible.

You need to win one out of ten. Additionally, there's a lot of equity in getting to SD, and a seeing Villain's hand may be worth BBs to you in the future.