bet or c/r with rivered straight

[milesdyson]

they could easily be off. i didn't use a spreadsheet or whatever, just used a tab of 2p2 and one of google to do the calcs.

i guess it looks close enough to not really matter.

[Victor]

ent, actually i didnt notice so my post is fairly worthless. i still think bet/call is bewst but whatever.

[MarkD]

Did some more work on this. I readjusted the hand range to this:

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
hand combos
AA 3
KK 3
TT 1
AT 6
KTs 1
55 3
A8 12
A9 12
AJ 9
AQ 9
AK 9
JJ 3
QQ 3
KQ 9
KJ 9
99 6 (always check behind, call a bet 20%)
88 6 (always check behind, call a bet 20%)
77 6 (always check behind, always fold to a bet)
66 6 (always check behind, always fold to a bet)
QTs 2 (bet and call CR, raise and call 3-bet)
JTs 2 (bet and call CR, raise and call 3-bet)
T9s 2 (bet and call CR, raise and call 3-bet)
QJ 9 (irrelevant so did not include action, but part of hand range and affects # combos so included)
</pre><hr />

and also fixed the pot size in my spreadsheet and the new numbers look like this:

<font class="small">Code:</font><hr /><pre>
EV of:
Bet - fold 4.9153
Bet - call 5.7874
Bet - 3bet - fold 5.8866
Bet - 3 bet - call 5.7569
Check - fold 2.4733
Check - call 5.7156
Check - raise - fold 6.0210
Check - raise - call 5.8912
Check - raise - cap 5.7615
</pre><hr />

CR really does seem like the right play here. I am with victor though that I liked the bet/call, but without adjusting the hand range here I think these numbers paint a solid picture of this river.

I dont't think very many people are really capable of check raise and folding to 3-bet so really we are comparing:
Check - raise - call 5.8912
Bet - 3 bet - call 5.7569
0.134 BB of EV is a fair bit I think.