panel hand - river - panel thoughts

[FUJItheFISH]

You actually raise. utg folds and emp calls. 2 to the river for 9.25 bb.

(3[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]) 5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

Emp checks, hero?

River:

Panelist One:

<font color="red"> Given the raise on the turn, hero should bet this. If his hand was good enough to raise the turn, then it needs to be a river value bet as well.

</font>

Panelist Two:

<font color="green"> Since UTG folded it is time to bet the river. If you raised the turn for value you should also bet the river blank for value. The river play would have been trickier had UTG called. He could have us beat with a pair of jacks but he could have been drawing to a straight/5-outer. Even in the event of UTG calling I would bet the river for value. Sure he might fold his missed draw but EMP could still call with a lower pair. With UTG folding there is no question that this is a value bet.
</font>

Panelist Three:

<font color="blue"> It is tempting to check and see a free showdown, but I really think we should bet for value here. We have the 2nd highest pair and a decent kicker. EMP didn't reraise on the turn, so there are a pretty good chance that we are ahead. Also, there is a pretty good chance that he will call if he has a pair of 7s, 3s or maybe a low pocketpair.

</font>

Panelist Four:

<font color="purple"> Value bets. River probably did not help villian. We may be behind J's, but we are ahead of most other possible holdings that villian will call with.
</font>

[btspider]

we got what we wanted (utg fold, emp call/check). check the river and get a read we so desperately need on this clown.

for any panel member who suggested calling the turn, but betting for value here.. i think that analysis is inconsistent. the lack of a turn 3-bet or river donk isn't enough for us to readjust our range for villian so much that we now think we're good 55% of the time, imo. the turn raise had protection value in addition to best hand value.. now we're down to best hand value only.

for completeness, i think the panel needs to note their response to a c/r and in general have more comprehensive plans to possible future action on all streets. for example, did any of them have a plan for a river donk or river check from villian when they discussed their turn raise followup?

[Absolution]

I think this is a fairly standard free showdown hand.

[DrModern]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this is a fairly standard free showdown hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

[milesdyson]

panelists 1 &amp; 2 are wrong in saying that the river is a value bet "because our hand was good enough to raise the turn." this is simply not the case. you can raise the turn w/o an edge in order to then take the free showdown when your hand can be good enough to warrant protecting but not good enough to warrant betting on the river unimproved for value.

im not really sure what we should do here to be honest. the fact that we did not improve on the river means a few more hands had the chance to pull ahead of us (J5, 75, 53, and 55), and this may be enough to make just checking behind the correct play. now that we've traversed our way through this marginal hand on the flop and turn, i dont really have any qualms with just checking behind and seeing who wins, but my first inclination is that you can squeak out a tiny bit of extra value here.

[Shillx]

[ QUOTE ]
we got what we wanted (utg fold, emp call/check). check the river and get a read we so desperately need on this clown.

for any panel member who suggested calling the turn, but betting for value here.. i think that analysis is inconsistent. the lack of a turn 3-bet or river donk isn't enough for us to readjust our range for villian so much that we now think we're good 55% of the time, imo. the turn raise had protection value in addition to best hand value.. now we're down to best hand value only.

for completeness, i think the panel needs to note their response to a c/r and in general have more comprehensive plans to possible future action on all streets. for example, did any of them have a plan for a river donk or river check from villian when they discussed their turn raise followup?

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true at all imo. Say I'm looking at a hand where everyone folds to the hero who has 32o on the button. I tell him to fold but he decides to raise. The BB calls and the flop comes down A95r and the BB checks. Now should I tell him to check the flop because I wanted him to fold PF?

It is perfectly consistant for someone to suggest calling the turn and betting the river. We likely would not have been in this spot if the hero just called the turn (and if so it is a clear value bet). The river bet is predicated on what took place on the turn and not what they wanted to take place.

That said I think it is inconsistant for people to suggest raising the turn + checking the river. If our hand isn't good 50% of the time now it wasn't good 50% of the time on the turn and there isn't any combo of hands that will increase our equity by having UTG fold when EMP has us beat (aside from like AK for UTG and J7 for the donk bettor). Even if the turn raise will get UTG to fold Jx then we should still bet because who cares if UTG folds Jx when EMP has us beat anyway. There just isn't any reason why we should check when he needs to hold all kinds of worse hands for us to raise the turn. If we felt like EMP had 7x and UTG had 3x and wanted to prevent him from drawing to 5-outs then the turn raise is good but we then want the 7x to payoff on the river and that is why we bet.

[00Snitch]

i cant see any value in a river bet. i dont know what he is possibly going to call with that you beat.

[btspider]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
we got what we wanted (utg fold, emp call/check). check the river and get a read we so desperately need on this clown.

for any panel member who suggested calling the turn, but betting for value here.. i think that analysis is inconsistent. the lack of a turn 3-bet or river donk isn't enough for us to readjust our range for villian so much that we now think we're good 55% of the time, imo. the turn raise had protection value in addition to best hand value.. now we're down to best hand value only.

for completeness, i think the panel needs to note their response to a c/r and in general have more comprehensive plans to possible future action on all streets. for example, did any of them have a plan for a river donk or river check from villian when they discussed their turn raise followup?

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't true at all imo. Say I'm looking at a hand where everyone folds to the hero who has 32o on the button. I tell him to fold but he decides to raise. The BB calls and the flop comes down A95r and the BB checks. Now should I tell him to check the flop because I wanted him to fold PF?

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't think that situation applies here tho. a cbet with 32o HU is clearly correct on a disjointed flop regardless of how incorrect the PF choice was. i understand that a wrong play on an early street should not preclude a certain line, even if its inconsistent as a whole. we constantly want to reevaluate our situation.

i think in this hand, that to raise the turn we need the best hand a decent % of the time (perhaps not 50%, but close). those who wished to call the turn did not think we had the best hand often enough to warrant the raise. the extra info we've gained since (which doesn't narrow villians range much), isn't enough to increase the likelihood of having the best hand above the 55% mark.

so those saying call the turn in this hand have established a range for villian that should preclude a river bet being for value here imo even given the turn raise. i don't see how you are narrowing villian's range down enough to hit the 55% mark from a mark too low to raise the turn.

maybe i'm drunk, but aren't we saying the same thing? "If our hand isn't good 50% of the time now it wasn't good 50% of the time on the turn". i agree you could call the turn and value bet the river if villian checks.. i'm saying you can't want to call the turn due to equity concerns, then somehow raise, and then think we can value bet the river. maybe we're getting tripped up b/c we're talking about a line that someone wanted to take, but was forced to not take..

[00Snitch]

shillx, doesnt raising the turn help us if UTG folds OCs or a gut shot or something like that?

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
i cant see any value in a river bet. i dont know what he is possibly going to call with that you beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he donked a worse hand in the first place and then called a turn raise with it, then he's almost certainly calling the river.