an expert and i disagreed on this one...
 

commerce 40, roman who is up like 16 racks is in the sb, im on the button, and tilted donk fish who is generally passive awful but has spurts of spastic aggression (in other words standard commerce tilted randomness) is in the hijack. the guy is currently in hate with roman and his runninggoodness.

hijack fish open limps, i raise KTo on the button, roman 3 bets AQo, fish caps it, i fold (not the point im looking to debate, but ill be glad to hear your input), roman calls.

the flop is Q62 rainbow and roman bets, the fish calls.

the turn is another Q. roman bets, fish calls.

the river is an A. roman checks.

the river is the part we disagree on. i think betting is significantly better.

Re: an expert and i disagreed on this one...
 

I think you phrased this post such that people who like you are gonna tend to agree wityh you and people who don't will try to agree with Roman.

At any rate, I guess I like you because I agree. There is absolutely no reason to emabarrass the fish here with a sexy when you are basically guaranteed a bet from him if he has anything whatsoever. Plus when somebody is getting run over they are sometimes less likely to bet marginal hands on the river when checked to.

As a side note: I know the Commerce fish are a rare cantankerous breed, but I play at a small local club a lot and I think it is decent policy to try and not take lines that maximize the embarrassment of a fish even if it might be giving up on a few dollars of ev.

Re: an expert and i disagreed on this one...
 

Given how the guy hates him I think betting is a bit better but not a ton. Checking lets the guy put in two bets for sure with an ace and one bet with almost anything else that he got to the river with. Betting gets spite called by lots of stuff but the question is how often the fish raises. I am used to being hated for running good and they don't raise me all that often, they just spite call. I'm on the fence.

-DeathDonkey

Re: an expert and i disagreed on this one...
 

the embarassment factor never crossed my mind. people regularly embarass themselves so badly by acting like 3 year olds that it's a non-issue at commerce. seriously.

im looking at this from a strictly EV standpoint.

Re: an expert and i disagreed on this one...
 

i want to state one thing now, though i have lots more to say later:

if this particular fish raises the river with an A (or better) he will at least call a 3 bet 100% of the time. this is not debatable.

Re: an expert and i disagreed on this one...
 

I honestly don't even think there should be a debate at all here because I cannot comprehend how the best play is to check. If we check we maybe collect 1 bet from some random bluff or 2 bets from an Ace. If we bet we get 1 bet from any pair and since he hates the Hero he will very likely raise in the event he has an Ace, which seems like a reasonable possibility and we collect 3 bets.

I'm not really seeing a situation where checking is the play aside from the villain having a hand to bluff with which seems pretty tough/impossible given the rest of the hand.

Re: an expert and i disagreed on this one...
 

[ QUOTE ]
the river is the part we disagree on. i think betting is significantly better.

[/ QUOTE ]

No question.

edit - I just read HOWMANY's guess that agreeing with mike may mean you're fanboy. I have high respect for mike's play and thoughts, but quit that club a while ago.

Re: an expert and i disagreed on this one...
 

b/3b > c/r
villain shows up with A-big or mid pr a vast majority imo... maybe A-big 40%, mid pr 50%, nada 10% - seem fair? hope this makes sense...

b/3b
mid pr: 1b (.5)
a-x: 3b (1.2)
bluff: 0b (0)
total: (1.7)

c/r
mid pr: 0b (0)
a-x: 2b (.8)
bluff: 1b (.1)
total: (.9)

Re: an expert and i disagreed on this one...
 

[ QUOTE ]
b/3b > c/r
villain shows up with A-big or mid pr a vast majority imo... maybe A-big 40%, mid pr 50%, nada 10% - seem fair? hope this makes sense...

b/3b
mid pr: 1b (.5)
a-x: 3b (1.2)
bluff: 0b (0)
total: (1.7)

c/r
mid pr: 0b (0)
a-x: 2b (.8)
bluff: 1b (.1)
total: (.9)

[/ QUOTE ]

You have this guy raising Ax every time and that obviously won't happen.

Of course, according to your calculation, if he raises with Ax just once out of a million times, b/3b is best.

Re: an expert and i disagreed on this one...
 

vmacosta, i agree with your note - the first time i was putting up numbers i had a % for each action, i.e. flat call A-x, raise A-x, but there were just too many numbers to be able to read it so i went this route...