Value bet or check behind Kings with rivered Ace?

[TimovieMan]

OK, I stoved a bit, hopefully it's any good.

For readability I've edited opponent's ranges out.
I basically went with any pair below JJ that DOESN'T make a set, any non-spade-suited, any ace, any king, and any queen and ten that pair with the board, as well as some offsuit connectors.
For Tricky I subtracted AJ, A9, KJ and K9 since he would have done some FPS-stuff with it.


Text results appended to pokerstove.txt

225,552 games 0.094 secs 2,399,489 games/sec

Board: 9s 6s 3s Jh Ac
Dead:

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 51.267% 51.27% 00.00% 115633 0.00 { KcKs }
Hand 1: 25.005% 24.76% 00.24% 55856 543.50 { Limpy range }
Hand 2: 23.728% 23.49% 00.24% 52976 543.50 { Tricky range }


So a little more than half the time I get 2-4 BB out of betting, and a little less than half the time I lose 2 BB, so betting is definitely +EV.


One thing I have to note (just thought of it): I don't really know how Tricky responds with Limpy also in the pot. I've seen him do strange stuff on the river, but he was HU every time. This is 3-way...

[TimovieMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Clarkmeister is not betting with air. It is betting, OOP, with a made hand like top pair.

[/ QUOTE ]
My bad, didn't realize that. Just figured it was b/f-ing anything OOP into a 4-flush.

Actually, that was one of my most important reads. I saw Tricky OOP betting Ace high with a 4-flush on board. He was HU with Limpy. Limpy called with bottom pair, ace kicker. Neither had a flush-card.

I basically went ZOMFG! and started writing some notes... [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[maverickai]

[ QUOTE ]

So a little more than half the time I get 2-4 BB out of betting, and a little less than half the time I lose 2 BB, so betting is definitely +EV.


[/ QUOTE ]

How do you arrive at the figure of 2-4BB out of betting? and why half the time you lose 2BB?

[TimovieMan]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you arrive at the figure of 2-4BB out of betting? and why half the time you lose 2BB?

[/ QUOTE ]
2-4BB when winning depends on Limpy calling or not, and 2BB is Tricky raising me (and me needing to call since he bluffs so much).

[marchron]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tricky

[/ QUOTE ]
This was the first word I saw in the post and that alone tells me you should check behind.

[/ QUOTE ]
Tricky McFish was the complete description I think and he's supposed to like bluffing a lot on scare cards, especially on the river.

Please can you be more specific in explaining your reasons for checking behind?

Are you worried he's been slowplaying a monster? OP doesn't seem to think that is the case.

Are you worried about an Ace, maybe the A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]?

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, fine, let's talk about the McFish part of the description. Do you think anyone who could be described as a fish will check/raise bluff . . . ever? Versus a guy who's shown nothing but strength?

If he's truly a fish, if you're betting you're folding to a raise. Always. And especially if Limpy has already called the first one, because he would be the type to check/call/call an Ace. If Tricky will bluff check/raise half the time he's in this situation, then you can feel safe betting and calling a raise (though I'd still be less likely to if it's not HU). But the rest of the time you must check behind, because you won't know how to handle a raise if he does.

[maverickai]

We need to calculate the EV of betting on the river, and we'll only be looking at the EV of the river action alone, based on the ranges you assigning to the villians.

I'll be assuming villians will call behind your bet:
you will win 2BB, and lose 1BB
EV=(2*0.51)+(-1*0.49)= 0.53BB

I'll be assuming limpy will call your bet, and tricky will raise, and all will call to showdown:
you will win 4BB, and lose 2BB
EV=(4*0.51)+(-2*0.49)= 1.06BB

So betting will yield +ve EV according to your stove results, and even if tricky raises, you might stand to gain more. However these results are very dependant on how you do your hand ranging.

If the stove results were to change to 30% for HERO, 70% for Tricky and Limpy, you will be having -ve EV for betting on the river.

[Aaron W.]

Check behind all the time against tricky. You say he's calling down ace high, and that just got there. You also say he's willing to bluff-raise and this is an excellent card for that. This is not a good spot to try to squeeze extra value with a 30 hand read.

[Mitke]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tricky

[/ QUOTE ]
This was the first word I saw in the post and that alone tells me you should check behind.

[/ QUOTE ]
Tricky McFish was the complete description I think and he's supposed to like bluffing a lot on scare cards, especially on the river.

Please can you be more specific in explaining your reasons for checking behind?

Are you worried he's been slowplaying a monster? OP doesn't seem to think that is the case.

Are you worried about an Ace, maybe the A[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]?

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay, fine, let's talk about the McFish part of the description. Do you think anyone who could be described as a fish will check/raise bluff . . . ever? Versus a guy who's shown nothing but strength?

If he's truly a fish, if you're betting you're folding to a raise. Always. And especially if Limpy has already called the first one, because he would be the type to check/call/call an Ace. If Tricky will bluff check/raise half the time he's in this situation, then you can feel safe betting and calling a raise (though I'd still be less likely to if it's not HU). But the rest of the time you must check behind, because you won't know how to handle a raise if he does.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, thanks for putting the time in to clarify your point.

From OP's description Tricky seemed like a maniacal type who could easily bluff c/r this river. Still, I probably overestimated the frequency that he'd do it. And like Aaron/w pointed out, it's still only 30 hands even if it often doesn't take much more to spot a bad player.

[TimovieMan]

[ QUOTE ]
This is not a good spot to try to squeeze extra value with a 30 hand read.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of which both players had gone to showdown at least ten times, mostly holding nothing.
Limpy calls all the way to showdown, Tricky does weird bluffing acts (especially on the river), most of the time with scary boards.

I'm calling Tricky a fish, since he hasn't figured out Limpy's never folding to his bluffs, and he hasn't figured out who'll actually have a strong holding.
He's basically trying to put everyone off their hands, regardless of what he's holding. Yes, he's tricky, but yes, he's a fish...

[TimovieMan]

[ QUOTE ]
Still, I probably overestimated the frequency that he'd do it. And like Aaron/w pointed out, it's still only 30 hands even if it often doesn't take much more to spot a bad player.

[/ QUOTE ]
So did I, because everytime I saw him bluff before, he was HU. Now it's not the case. And maybe he's realized by now he's NEVER folding Limpy, and I could very well have him beat. Since both scenarios have happened already in the session...