A 99 hand
 

Table seemed a bit tight, with no one really seeming to get out of line. Having said that, weak hands were sometimes shown down.

PokerStars 0.50/1.00 Hold'em (8 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: 2+2 Forums)

Preflop: Hero is CO with 9[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img].
UTG calls, <font color="#666666">3 folds</font>, <font color="#CC3333">Hero raises</font>, <font color="#666666">2 folds</font>, BB calls, UTG calls.

Flop: (6.50 SB) 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img], 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">BB bets</font>, UTG folds, Hero calls.

Turn: (4.25 BB) 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">BB bets</font>, Hero calls.

River: (6.25 BB) 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>

BB checks, Hero ???

Final Pot: 6.25 BB

The board seemed dry, and I called the flop and turn, in case I had the best hand. Value bet river when checked to ?

Re: A 99 hand
 

I would probably just check. If he was bluffing, he's not calling; if he was value betting a J and got scared, he's not folding.

Re: A 99 hand
 

I check for all the reasons Aaron said.

Re: A 99 hand
 

I'd bet. A lot of his good hands go out the window when he checks the river.

Re: A 99 hand
 

I bet because he mostly likely has a small/medium pocket pair and will pay you off.

Re: A 99 hand
 

R/F the turn, check the river

as played bet the river, unless opponent is known to be tricky

Re: A 99 hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
R/F the turn

[/ QUOTE ]

What does this accomplish?

Re: A 99 hand
 

it's going to be 2 bets anyway so why not try a free showdown + fold equity, i would't want any overcards drawing here a KQ may fold and also any unpaired Kx,Ax maybe he called with TT and folds (although very unlikely) if villain 3 bets he likely has AJ or smth

Re: A 99 hand
 

I can't see raising the turn but I have to admit my first thought was to raise the flop after the donk bet.

I think this is probably a pretty big leak in my game.

I've been reading stox book and it talks about c-betting neatly 100% of the time after you raise PF and get HU. He definitely puts a lot of emphasis on keeping the lead when possible.

I'm not sure how this applies when someone donks into me after a raise.

Any general rules on this situation when you raise PF and have a marginal hand post flop and face a donk bet?

Seems like against aggressive players this may become a WA/WB situation?

What about against passives?

This may be too general a question but the hand here is pretty close to ones I've been spewing with. If it is too general I'm sure I can post some others [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

Re: A 99 hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
it's going to be 2 bets anyway so why not try a free showdown + fold equity, i would't want any overcards drawing here a KQ may fold and also any unpaired Kx,Ax maybe he called with TT and folds (although very unlikely) if villain 3 bets he likely has AJ or smth

[/ QUOTE ]

I took yet another read over the Free Showdown Play section in Stox's book, and this spot does seem to fulfill several of his conditions for making it. Villain may well be bluffing with 6 outs, and if we're behind, we don't have many outs and can fold to a 3-bet. I'd typically call, but there could be a case for raising.

EDIT: We also make an extra bet the times he does have overcards, calls anyway, and misses on the river.

Re: A 99 hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it's going to be 2 bets anyway so why not try a free showdown + fold equity, i would't want any overcards drawing here a KQ may fold and also any unpaired Kx,Ax maybe he called with TT and folds (although very unlikely) if villain 3 bets he likely has AJ or smth

[/ QUOTE ]

I took yet another read over the Free Showdown Play section in Stox's book, and this spot does seem to fulfill several of his conditions for making it. Villain may well be bluffing with 6 outs, and if we're behind, we don't have many outs and can fold to a 3-bet. I'd typically call, but there could be a case for raising.

EDIT: We also make an extra bet the times he does have overcards, calls anyway, and misses on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

It really depends on what hands villian is donking with. Against an unknown I'm thinking it's much more likely this is a made marginal hand than something like KQ. But if a large part of villians range is two overs (and I think two is important here - if villian is only betting a three out hand like A2 it's probably higher EV to just let him bluff) then I like the free showdown raise.

Re: A 99 hand
 

Overall I agree. OP said the table was tightish, so a J is fairly likely. I'd need to have a read that this was the kinda guy who likes to bluff paired boards to raise the turn.

Re: A 99 hand
 

[ QUOTE ]

EDIT: We also make an extra bet the times he does have overcards, calls anyway, and misses on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or spew an extra bet when villain has a scared J.

Re: A 99 hand
 

[ QUOTE ]

I took yet another read over the Free Showdown Play section in Stox's book, and this spot does seem to fulfill several of his conditions for making it. Villain may well be bluffing with 6 outs, and if we're behind, we don't have many outs and can fold to a 3-bet. I'd typically call, but there could be a case for raising.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not familiar with "Stox's book", but just from what your saying, it probably sucks. A villain's numbers would have to be pretty coincidental for a raise on this turn to be correct. Specifically, he would need to have high aggression, a tendency to donk a lot, and high showdown numbers. Against the vast majority of villains, raising this turn is incredible stupid.

Re: A 99 hand
 

I check, but plz r/f the turn

Re: A 99 hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
Overall I agree. OP said the table was tightish, so a J is fairly likely. I'd need to have a read that this was the kinda guy who likes to bluff paired boards to raise the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you see, **even** if villain was the type who likes to bluff paired boards, raising would probably not be correct. I won't talk a lot about WA/WB situations because there's a search function on this site, but suffice it to say that:
- this is a textbook WA/WB

- if he's bluffing, why do you want him to stop?

- if he's not bluffing, why do you want to give him more money (i.e. he checks the river, just like he did in this hand - now you're the one who can decide to value bet or take a free showdown)? **or** give him the same amount of money and not see a showdown (i.e. he 3's it).

Re: A 99 hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
I check, but plz r/f the turn

[/ QUOTE ]

lol.

Clearly, a pooh-bah needs to write an essay on WA/WB.

Re: A 99 hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
it's going to be 2 bets anyway so why not try a free showdown + fold equity, i would't want any overcards drawing here a KQ may fold and also any unpaired Kx,Ax maybe he called with TT and folds (although very unlikely) if villain 3 bets he likely has AJ or smth

[/ QUOTE ]

"It's going to be 2 bets anyway" isn't an argument. You have to tell me why the raise/fold line is BETTER than the call/call line.

If it's going to be two bets anyway, why would you want Ax/Kx to fold by raising the turn? Because then it's not two bets anymore and you miss out value from worse hands.

This sounds like you're trying to make a play for the sake of making a play.

Re: A 99 hand
 

The decision of whether or not to bet the river seems like a pretty straightforward exercise in combinatorics.

Re: A 99 hand
 

possible holdings of BB could be: AQ, AJ, KQ, KJ, QJ, J8s+

I think this are reasonable holdings for BB...

AJ: could 3-bet or donk the river, in both cases it's a fold
KJ,QJ: may be scared fearing AJ and simply call/check
JT-J8s: unlikely that this hands will fold but still it's worth a shot in this big pot
AQ,KQ: if you simply call here you give these hands a free shot at this big pot, the turn raise would protect the pot from these hands

there is only 1 scenario there you don't have the best of it not R/F this turn, if BB holds AJ, of course everything might change if there is a read on the opponent...

Re: A 99 hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
The decision of whether or not to bet the river seems like a pretty straightforward exercise in combinatorics.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a bit more complicated than that since we don't have a good idea what an unknown donk/donk/checks with on this board, and whether he'll payoff with A high or get scared on the river for no reason with a better hand.

I like a bet, though, he'd have to be a big puss to hold a jack here.

Re: A 99 hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
possible holdings of BB could be: AQ, AJ, KQ, KJ, QJ, J8s+

[/ QUOTE ]

I find it incredibly odd that you think villain will bet AQ but not bet 88 and other pocket pairs.

Re: A 99 hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Overall I agree. OP said the table was tightish, so a J is fairly likely. I'd need to have a read that this was the kinda guy who likes to bluff paired boards to raise the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you see, **even** if villain was the type who likes to bluff paired boards, raising would probably not be correct. I won't talk a lot about WA/WB situations because there's a search function on this site, but suffice it to say that:
- this is a textbook WA/WB

- if he's bluffing, why do you want him to stop?

- if he's not bluffing, why do you want to give him more money (i.e. he checks the river, just like he did in this hand - now you're the one who can decide to value bet or take a free showdown)? **or** give him the same amount of money and not see a showdown (i.e. he 3's it).

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't play shorthanded much, do you? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] There are a lot of guys in those games who'll show bizarre aggro on a paired board, and given that full-ring games have also got more aggressive, I suspect that there are similar players there too. It would be no bad thing if he folded if he had 6 outs against us. In this situation though, we have a player who we think is tightish, a J on the board, and a fairly high pocket pair which somewhat decreases the number of two overcard combinations he could have. But IMHO, assuming that only a small minority of players would play like this with OCs is wrong.

Re: A 99 hand
 

33,77 -&gt; 3-bet -&gt; fold
TT unlikely he has it, not likely he folds it but adds a bit to the folding equity and will likely C/C
88 may fold, but also may call the turn raise

I still would like to raise the turn, because villain might call the turn raise with 88 making a big mistake, if the pot was smaller i'd prefer to C/C...

however the more i think about this hand the more it's becoming a very thin descision between R/F and C/C, i don't think the EV between both lines differs a lot, and it's not a classical WA/WB situation because the 99 is vulnurable to overcards...

Re: A 99 hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I check, but plz r/f the turn

[/ QUOTE ]

lol.

Clearly, a pooh-bah needs to write an essay on WA/WB.

[/ QUOTE ]

There have been a few, and clearly you should read them as this isn't WA/WB.

Re: A 99 hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I check, but plz r/f the turn

[/ QUOTE ]

lol.

Clearly, a pooh-bah needs to write an essay on WA/WB.

[/ QUOTE ]

There have been a few, and clearly you should read them as this isn't WA/WB.

[/ QUOTE ]


yeah, i know there have been a few. stupid comment. as per the hand.

Ok, I'm going to get super nitty, so bear with me. Let's see, from the flop, if we are behind, we have 2 outs - so, I'm pretty certain the "WB" part of the WA/WB is correct. Now, I believe that this line by villain is almost always, like 95%+, either a Jack, or another PP. If it's a jack, we are WB. If it's another PP, we are either WA or WB. Am I missing something here? How often does an this line mean random wiffed big cards: AT, AQ, KQ? In this case I suppose it's not WA/WB.

Re: A 99 hand
 

This isn't WA/WB because villian could easily have two overs.

Re: A 99 hand
 

I tend to just get to showdown when they donk, just to see why they donk. Also I will be paying attention to this one vs other opponents.

Re: A 99 hand
 

What about this hand makes it appear that villain has AT, AQ, AK, KQ, KT, or QT?

Re: A 99 hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
This isn't WA/WB because villian could easily have two overs.

[/ QUOTE ]

word. WA/WB is an overused term and often used when hero has few outs and villian has many.

[ QUOTE ]
have to admit my first thought was to raise the flop after the donk bet because this can be overcard(s)


[/ QUOTE ]
guilty as charged [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: A 99 hand
 

Raising the turn is an option. I think u should value-bet. Could be a smaller PP or a bluff that backed into a pair and now prefer to show down.

Re: A 99 hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
Raising the turn is an option. I think u should value-bet. Could be a smaller PP or a bluff that backed into a pair and now prefer to show down.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems like some highly respected posters don't want to raise this turn. Is it correct that our hand is too good to raise? Meaning if villain is bluffing he likely holds only one OC. The raise would be a better play with 44?

Even if villain holds only one OC a raise may be good, if we think he will give up a bluff on the river?

Re: A 99 hand
 

[ QUOTE ]
It seems like some highly respected posters don't want to raise this turn. Is it correct that our hand is too good to raise? Meaning if villain is bluffing he likely holds only one OC. The raise would be a better play with 44?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
Even if villain holds only one OC a raise may be good, if we think he will give up a bluff on the river?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think that is the case, then yes.

Villain in this case is pretty much an unknown, which means that I would rather take a passive line against his aggression than to out aggro the aggressor. Hero's hand has decent showdown value, so I would play to take it to showdown.

To contrast, the 44 hand has less showdown value, so I don't mind taking a folding line.

Re: A 99 hand
 

Well, it looks like he was most likely bluffing the flop and turn so he probably had nothing. And if he was bluffing then he won't call your river bet.

If he is laying a trap for you, then you lose at least 1 bet and possibly 2 if you want to see what he has, so I just check behind here as I don't see how betting is +EV.