River check up
 

Villain is 51/2.8/.4 after 51 hands.
Plays pretty loose but obviously passive.

As this hand developed I became convinced that villain's most likely hand was TPWK or 2nd pair.

So at the river I was in a quandry. I felt like he might call a bet with a weaker hand but since the nine paired I was vulnerable to trip nines. I decided to check/call even though he was playing passively because of the possibility he might bet a weaker K. What do you think? If I ever learn to play the river...... It seems like the things I do learn are very clear at the time but fade away from me and I get confused again in the heat of battle. River play also confuses me too frequently even when I am reviewing the hands.

I am continuing, less than successfully, to try to improve my river play. If the conventional wisdom "you haven't failed until you quit trying" is correct, then I haven't failed yet [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img].

PokerStars 0.25/0.50 Hold'em (5 handed) Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: 2+2 Forums)

Preflop: Hero is SB with J[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img].
<font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, MP calls, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>, Hero completes, BB :#A500AF(villain)/ checks.

Flop: (3 SB) 2[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], 9[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img], K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, villain calls, MP folds.

Turn: (2.50 BB) 3[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
<font color="#CC3333">Hero bets</font>, villain calls.

River: (4.50 BB) 9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] <font color="#0000FF">(2 players)</font>
Hero checks, <font color="#CC3333">villain bets</font>, Hero calls.

Final Pot: 6.50 BB

Re: River check up
 

[ QUOTE ]
As this hand developed I became convinced that villain's most likely hand was TPWK or 2nd pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

His range is much wider than that including Ax, 2x small PP, all hands he will pay off with but not bet himself. Some villlains at this level pay off QJ etc. You must bet, not close.

Bona, it's obvious after reading many of ur posts that u need to get more aggro. I understand that it is somewhat agaisnt ur nature because you also seem to be a very nice guy. Try to think of it in terms of correct/wrong instead of aggro/careful. That way it may get less personal for u and easier to bet/raise.

It's not a question of different styles. The truth is u miss a lot value by playing so timidly.

Re: River check up
 

On a drawy board this line has a lot more merit. Here Villan cant really hold anything less than a pair. I have been using this line a lot recently and its stunning what people will bluff with that they wouldnt call with.

Here villan will bet most his holdnigs if you check, but he will also call with most of the same holdings if you bet.

Unless you have seen Villan out of line you can fold to a raise, just dont make it to much of a habit.

Re: River check up
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here villan will bet most his holdnigs if you check, but he will also call with most of the same holdings if you bet.

Unless you have seen Villan out of line you can fold to a raise, just dont make it to much of a habit.

[/ QUOTE ]

qft ^ 2

Edit: another way of looking at the first point is that he's not bluff-betting anything that he'd fold, i.e. you're not getting any MORE bets out of him no matter what; the only way to be sure of getting another bet out of him is to bet the river.

Re: River check up
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here villan will bet most his holdnigs if you check, but he will also call with most of the same holdings if you bet.

Unless you have seen Villan out of line you can fold to a raise, just dont make it to much of a habit.

[/ QUOTE ]

qft ^ 2

Edit: another way of looking at the first point is that he's not bluff-betting anything that he'd fold, i.e. you're not getting any MORE bets out of him no matter what; the only way to be sure of getting another bet out of him is to bet the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm.. I look at point one a bit different...if he bets the same exact holdings that he calls with (even if most), then c/c'ing is clearly better.. DUCY?

BTW, this is not in disagreement w/ what Boz is saying here because of what he put in his edit. If what is in the edit is true, then leading is best, but I feel the assumption in the edit far from 100% accurate.

Re: River check up
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm.. I look at point one a bit different...if he bets the same exact holdings that he calls with (even if most), then c/c'ing is clearly better.. DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, I don't. c/c is only correct if he'll bet with more than he'll call with, e.g. bluffing a busted draw, a middle pp, ace-high; you're saying c/c is correct in this case if he'll bet with slightly less than he'll call with. You got some splainin' to do, Lucy.

Re: River check up
 

I've been known to raise this preflop rather than just complete.

What are his showdown stats? If they are below 45 I bet, above 53 I play it like you did.

I think the river is a must value bet as he will check behind with a naked A. If you had more of a read on him you could maybe induce a bluff out of him.

Re: River check up
 

raise preflop, bet river.