Check/fold, bet/fold, or check/call on the river?

[Absolution]

Good post Nick. I think that was my instinct at the time and I did check call, although I didn't go through that much thought. He showed a set of 7s.

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
a bet-fold is better than a check-call only if the amount of worse hands Villain will call with is greater than the number of worse hands Villain will bluff-raise with multiplied by the size of the pot after our bet plus the number of better hands Villain would have checked behind plus the number of worse hands Villain would have bet if checked to.


[/ QUOTE ]


In general, it's a bet against a LP: Villain will <u>often</u> check through a pair of sevens but will <u>always</u> call a pair of sixes. However, if this equation is close enough then check/calling is better because the LP only has to bet his busted draw a few times or bluff raise once to make up for the difference. In other words, it's a judgement call and based on Hero's read, it does look like check-call is best.

[WhiteWolf]

Good point about how even a rare chance of a bluff-raise can swing the equation from bet/fold to check/call. I often totally discount the chance of a bluff raise from LPP's, which is probably a leak in my game against all but the most predictable players.

Also note, in your hypothetical example, that check/fold is actually our best overall option (I think that is what you meant by check/call + bet/fold are both -EV?).

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
He showed a set of 7s.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess it was one of those instances where someone else's absurd multiway slowplay ended up costing you money then [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img].

[Nick C]

[ QUOTE ]
Also note, in your hypothetical example, that check/fold is actually our best overall option (I think that is what you meant by check/call + bet/fold are both -EV?).

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant that the river is a -EV street for us in the hypothetical hand. But you're right: I did manage to create an example where check-folding is clearly the best play, although still -EV for us on the river (since we're getting bluffed out occasionally).

I was so focused on inventing numbers that made check-calling better than bet-folding (while still making Villain seem sort of loose-passive) that I didn't notice what an obvious check-fold situation I had created [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img].

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
was so focused on inventing numbers that made check-calling better than bet-folding (while still making Villain seem sort of loose-passive) that I didn't notice what an obvious check-fold situation I had created .


[/ QUOTE ]

That's deeep!

[ILOVEPOKER929]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Loose passive players call a lot more hands than they bet, so check/call can never be better than bet/fold here. I think the only choice is between check/fold and bet/fold. Check/fold doesn't feel right here, so, I'd go with bet/fold in this situation.

[/ QUOTE ]


You aren't going to bet/fold, it's you are going to bet, he's going to fold.

I'm checking to get value from hands that cannot call. I know I have the nuts about always here.

so check/call makes the most money here.

Even passive ppl bet the river with busted draws given the line you take here.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a standard check/call situation. So I agree with Thehip41 and anyone else who advocates this line in this spot.

[johnnyrocket]

the hands u are describing all depend on the opponent, one who is likely to bluff if he misses a draw then u check/call to induce a river bluff alot. If he calls down real light then u have to value bet out on the river. If he is a tag then you should bet/fold since he wont raise here alot without a hand, very opponent dependent.

[johnnyrocket]

the hand u showed with him just calling u normally have the best hand and he has a busted draw unless he is a fish over slowplaying here (which he was), in this case i check/call alot to induce a bluff.

[VeraN]

Out of curiosity how much of the pot did the villain bet on the river?