I spike my river and get checkraised all in?

[futuredoc85]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand all this talk about our hand only being a bluff catcher. Is villain not check rasing this river with any queen? Everyone here wants to call with AQ but fold QJ, but this doesn't make any sense to me. Given they way this entire hand played out AQ is barely better than QJ, at least not enough to turn a call into a fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

the Qs he is most likely to have here are QT+. we beat 0 of them.

[djj6835]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand all this talk about our hand only being a bluff catcher. Is villain not check rasing this river with any queen? Everyone here wants to call with AQ but fold QJ, but this doesn't make any sense to me. Given they way this entire hand played out AQ is barely better than QJ, at least not enough to turn a call into a fold.


[/ QUOTE ] the Qs he is most likely to have here are QT+. we beat 0 of them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. I just assumed we see a lot more random hands outside of QT+ here. Epecially given the weak river bet.

Also in regards to unknowns never check raise bluffing the river, I could pull out at least three hands in my last few session in which an unknown villain attempted to check raise bluff the river in hands very similar to this one.

Not sure if this is the norm (I assume it isn't), but it is definitely a possiblity.

[FishSticks]

Thanks for all the responses guys, I do appreciate the discussion.

I think everyone agrees my river bet was $10 short, unless I was specifically trying to look weak and induce a bluff (which I might experiment with against laggro's now).

On the river, it seems like folks are divided in to two camps, really:

1) River crai at these stakes is rarely a bluff
2) If villain sucks enough to do this with the nuts, he sucks enough to do this with junk too.

The thing about #2 to me, is that villain's can suck in a variety of ways - all suck is not created equal.

If villain sucks in that he is the kind of spewtard that just wants to bluff off his stack, this logic makes sense to me - but it seems like villain's other actions in the hand don't point in this direction. Villain's also suck in that they can be extremely nitty and passive and do this sort of thing with only the nuts ever, and it's just how they play their lock hands. With no read on villain it's hard to pin this down - but I don't agree that saying he sucks in general defines his range here.

[MTSuper7]

Honestly, without a read, I probably make a crying call here in the heat of the moment. Having a chance to read the reponses, think about the hand more, and reflect upon my own experiences being check raised on the river, folding makes a lot more sense. I've seen plenty of people poorly play monsters, without any concern over giving free cards on a drawy board. I kept reading the posts about how "villain wouldn't check a strong hand on a drawy board", but we're assuming that villain is a solid player. We only know that he seems tight after 10 hands, so we can't assume he'd make solid choices post-flop, only pre-flop (and with only ten hands, we don't even know that much about him pre-flop).

I'll bet we see deuces or tens full from villain in this spot. His call from BB might be with a better Q, but a lot of people will play any PP in this spot, then slowplay it if they catch. Whereas we agree that a solid player would bet the river in that scenario, there are plenty of donks that will check their monster as long as it takes to induce more action and with no concern of drawy boards. Remember, they primarily only pay attention to their own cards and don't notice much else.

But again, I probably make a crying call in the heat of the moment since my weak line might have induced a bluff. Then I'd kick myself for calling when villain shows deuces or tens full. I'll have to remember this thread the next time I'm c/r'ed on the river.

[LouisCyphre]

I still call here although I have read some sound reasons why a fold should be considered. The argument that villain is an unknown and therefore won't check-raise as a bluff is flawed in my opinion though. We might tend to give unknowns credit for a hand until we get a read that says otherwise but that does not mean an unknown villian is not capable of tricky bluffs until he gave us the courtesy of playing a three-digit number of hands with us. Every tricky and aggressive player was an unknown to us at some point.

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
I still call here although I have read some sound reasons why a fold should be considered. The argument that villain is an unknown and therefore won't check-raise as a bluff is flawed in my opinion though. We might tend to give unknowns credit for a hand until we get a read that says otherwise but that does not mean an unknown villian is not capable of tricky bluffs until he gave us the courtesy of playing a three-digit number of hands with us. Every tricky and aggressive player was an unknown to us at some point.

[/ QUOTE ]

That logic is really poor, man. You really can't call this against an unknown IMO with no kind of read, because this simply is not a bluff most people are capable of making. A typical player if he wants to bluff his missed draw is just going to bet the river with his 8 high missed flush draw rather than check to you and have you check behind some garbage that would have folded to a river bet (or at least considered it).

With that said, against players who I think are aggressive and capable of doing this with air, I'd probably call as played. The fact remains that most people aren't capable of doing this with nothing, because they risk their entire stack in the process, and they'd feel really dumb to checkraise the river with nothing into trips / boat that most people are never folding.

[LouisCyphre]

[ QUOTE ]
they'd feel really dumb to checkraise the river with nothing into trips / boat that most people are never folding.

[/ QUOTE ]

After checking the turn behind there is no way villain can put our hero on trips or better. Then there is only the weak bet on the river.
I agree that a typical player will rarely make this play as a bluff but what I wanted to point out is that unknown player does not automatically equal typical player.

[morphball]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're actually good here like 10% of the time, but go ahead and call in spots like this, I could care less.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be generous and say 15%.

People are reading way too much into the "It's a pussy bet, I'm gonna punish it" mentality. He most likely has a poorly slowplayed monster.

[/ QUOTE ]

For AP's side of the argument, many many SSNL'ers will c/c flopped monsters on the flop and then check the turn looking to c/r the c-bettor, and they don't care about the draws.

I don't know if checking the turn is the right play or not. If you bet and get called, doesn't the size of Villian's stack make it hard to ever find a fold on the river?

[bilbo-san]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You're actually good here like 10% of the time, but go ahead and call in spots like this, I could care less.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be generous and say 15%.

People are reading way too much into the "It's a pussy bet, I'm gonna punish it" mentality. He most likely has a poorly slowplayed monster.

[/ QUOTE ]

For AP's side of the argument, many many SSNL'ers will c/c flopped monsters on the flop and then check the turn looking to c/r the c-bettor, and they don't care about the draws.

I don't know if checking the turn is the right play or not. If you bet and get called, doesn't the size of Villian's stack make it hard to ever find a fold on the river?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is very unusual to check a HUGE hand on 3 streets. About the only huge hand that makes sense here is QT (because it is not huge until the river).

If villain is at all decent, he finds a bet somewhere with every other huge hand in his range.

By the way, this whole thread is evidence that river c/r bluffs are way, way underused against good players. I would virtually never, ever just bluff bet this river in any case, and if you think about it, it's a TERRIBLE spot to bluff that way.

Given that OP checked behind on the turn, we can assume he either:

1) wants to show down a marginal/decent hand cheaply or catch a bluff
2) has a draw he doesn't want to get blown off of
or
3) Has overs or some other no-pair garbage and doesn't think a 2nd barrel is profitable.

He almost never has a monster because he wouldn't give a free card on the turn with one. I also think that players love to 2nd-barrel drawy boards, so this is heavily weighted towards being 1), in which case you play right into OP's hands by bluffing the river.

A river c/r is great here because it succeeds more often given his hand range -- and the fact that 75% of you want to fold everything that isn't a boat is clear evidence of that. Sure, you miss some opportunities when OP checks behind the river with his garbage that happens to be the winner. But you make up for it by virtue of the fact that you earn more $$ when he makes a thin value bet.

[aislephive]

You're thinking wayyyyyyy too deep, this is an unknown. It's a mistake to think he is operating on that kind of level.