"... on the river, I bet and fold to a raise..."

[fretelöo]

This is a comment one hears quite often. The point is, I guess, that you're betting for value every time someone just calls, you're "bluffing" if everyone folds and you "gain information" and "save a bet" when you fold to the raise.

Of course, this is _almost_ pointless to discuss without a few concrete examples, but in all generality, you voluntarily put in a bet on the river, getting 1:x odds and are unwilling to call one more bet getting even better odds.
This can only be optimal, if people just don't c/r you on the river with hands that you beat.

And did anyone actually check whether this is true over a large sample? I.e., compared the return of just c/c or b/c the river instead of b/f?

[maniacut]

uh you can't generalize lines down to a specific street. You can't always c/c the river because your play is so obvious and nobody will bluff at you and not even bet their mediocre hands against your good ones. you can't bet/call every river because you will lose 2 bets with your weaker hands. you can't bet/fold every river because you'll get bluffed off the best hand every time.

Seriously, re-read what you wrote. It doesn't make any sense.

[fretelöo]

[ QUOTE ]
you can't bet/fold every river because you'll get bluffed off the best hand every time.

Seriously, re-read what you wrote. It doesn't make any sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I acknowledged that it's relatively pointless to discuss this w/out concrete examples. However,

a) when people suggest this play, they usually don't say "... to mix up your play" or "...to make you less predictable". They just recommend it as if it is simply the way to play this - just as you'd recommend to bet your AA.

b) When people came up with this play, they must have had good reason. And I'm assuming they didn't just think "well, let's see if that works" - they probably made sure it works. And for that, they must have checked whether c/c + b/c ultimately returns less than b/f in certain scenarios. Otherwise they'd use a non-optimal strategy.

And I'm simply asking if someone actually checked that.
If someone recomends b/f'ing the river, he does so because the hand exhibits some general characteristics that lead him to conclude that this play is best in this situation. Those characteristics can be stated and checked. What's so nonesensical about this?

[Xylocain]

Didn't read all the above^^ just offering my 2c

The point of the b/f line is that very few people will have the stones bluff-raise the river.

Thus if you intend to call a bet with a marginal hand on the river it is better to bet yourself to prevent your opponent from checking his worse hands that he intended to call with (costing you one bet).

If you bet, he will fold his usless hands (draws etc.) but he will call with some hands that beat you and some hands that you have beat. Since you intended to call anyway, you will profit from the times he calls with inferior hands and you will not loose anything extra when he beats you.

Most Vils do not bluff-raise the river so when you are c/r:d or raised you are very likely beat and can fold.

The problem with the b/f line is that it will affect your table image against thinking players as they are encuraged to take shots at you if you do it to often.

[DrModern]

[ QUOTE ]
This can only be optimal, if people just don't c/r you on the river with hands that you beat.

And did anyone actually check whether this is true over a large sample? I.e., compared the return of just c/c or b/c the river instead of b/f?

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. The problem is that it's very difficult to create a statistical filter for this sort of scenario, viz. "Was in a situation to correctly apply a river bet-fold line, and folded the best hand to a bluff raise."

The best way to consider the bet-fold line is like a theoretical thought experiment. Say you know your opponent has some range of hands, of which you beat 55% and lose to 45%. A bet-fold line is very effective here as it prevents him from playing his hand optimally: he can't check behind with worse hands, and he won't raise many hands that have you beat.

Your opponent would have to be very thoughtful to counter this strategy, which almost no micros opponents are. He'd have to think "Well, I've seen this guy apply a bet-fold line in situations like this before; I think I'm beat, so I'll bluff raise this busted flush draw." This take strong analytical skills and major cajones. Most villains don't play this way.

Basically, my point is that the bet-fold line is very effective and employing it correctly will add significantly to your winrate.