TT against passive caller; K on board.

[boss]

even though stats are only over 20 hands 25 % VP$P is hardly tight, rather on the loosish side.

Id probably bet this river for value and expect to get called by 8x, pp 33-99 and possibly A6-A7 more often than Kx. The OP image at the table is important to understand what type of hand villain might be calling with.

I dont expect a raise with Kx very often with a second 5 on the river. In addition Id dont expect this category of player to bluff-raise so we can safley fold to a raise.

Against a tigther player Id probably play the same

[carlosoli]

I'd play the same. I like checking it down at the end. I know the old argument of getting check-raised or only getting called by a better hand. I think that you will lose this one more often than get him off a K. I like straightforward plays at microlimits. I don't pay him off by firing again to Kx.

[Christian_Peters]

Hand is played perfectly.



Only thing that would change is if villain is soooo passive, he would check the river with a scared King if you check the turn. There aren't too many villains online that fit this build, but they are common at the B&M. Against this sort of nit, I'm checking the turn for a free showdown.

Edit: If he's loose, though, then get value from a pair worse than yours. But if he's tight, then do as I say in paragraph 2.

[bravos1]

[ QUOTE ]
Hand is played perfectly.



Only thing that would change is if villain is soooo passive, he would check the river with a scared King if you check the turn. There aren't too many villains online that fit this build, but they are common at the B&M. Against this sort of nit, I'm checking the turn for a free showdown.

Edit: If he's loose, though, then get value from a pair worse than yours. But if he's tight, then do as I say in paragraph 2.

[/ QUOTE ]

Online you are not gonna get too many free showdowns, especially from a king. I don't like checking the turn here because villian could of peeled the flop with all kinds of crap that folds the turn (ie Ax, 22-33, 66-77, etc.) and while those hands are drawing slim, it's better to just take the entire pot now if he will give it up.

[Shillx]

What's wrong with playing Kx this way? He should have bet the river but it looks good otherwise.

[bravos1]

[ QUOTE ]
What's wrong with playing Kx this way? He should have bet the river but it looks good otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing wrong with villian playing Kx this way at all... my point was that anyone w/ Kx is going to bet the river if Hero checks the turn through. I would rather keep repping a good hand and let villian fold the turn than checking behind. Obviously if we check check behind the turn, we have to call a river bet.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like checking the turn here because villian could of peeled the flop with all kinds of crap that folds the turn (ie Ax, 22-33, 66-77, etc.) and while those hands are drawing slim, it's better to just take the entire pot now if he will give it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he calls or bets the river with those hands UI rather than c/f'ing, then checking is better than betting

EDIT: I'm not saying check is my default play here but you'd definitely do better checking behind and calling river if you know that:

-He has an underpair
-He will fold to your turn bet if you make it
-He will put in at least one river bet UI

[bravos1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't like checking the turn here because villian could of peeled the flop with all kinds of crap that folds the turn (ie Ax, 22-33, 66-77, etc.) and while those hands are drawing slim, it's better to just take the entire pot now if he will give it up.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he calls or bets the river with those hands UI rather than c/f'ing, then checking is better than betting

EDIT: I'm not saying check is my default play here but you'd definitely do better checking behind and calling river if you know that:

-He has an underpair
-He will fold to your turn bet if you make it
-He will put in at least one river bet UI

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree... my last part was mostly referring to villian not putting another bet into the pot unless he improves.

If the guy has a hand like AJ/AQ which I wouldn't mind seeing a fold to a turn bet, BUT it would really suck to check the turn and give him a free shot to catch an A, Q, J, etc.

If we know that :
- the guy has a weak pocket pair, an A, Q, or J
- will never put in another bet unless he improves

it is better to bet the turn and not give him that chance to catch.

If he does have one of these hands, wouldn't we want to charge him to see the river if indeed he is drawing or has an 8? Why would you want to give him the chance to suckout for free even if the same amount of bets (1BB) are going in post flop.

There is also the added benefit (even if small) of being able to get another bet on the river (when you bet the turn) when you do happen to catch a set on the river.

[bravos1]

please don't mistake my above post for never checking here to induce a bluff. I do this all the time as well, but if the guy really is w/t (which I'm sure we can say for sure) he may never even attempt to bet the river w/o a king.

[Xhad]

[ QUOTE ]
If he does have one of these hands, wouldn't we want to charge him to see the river if indeed he is drawing or has an 8? Why would you want to give him the chance to suckout for free even if the same amount of bets (1BB) are going in post flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if he always puts a bet in on the river UI and he would be incorrect to call the turn but would correctly fold, then checking is +EV. You're basically giving him his equity in the pot in exchange for 1BB which would be the same thing as betting and having him incorrectly call.

If he will c/f the river UI, or if some cards will force you to check behind UI (like if you check behind and an A rivers you really have to check behind against this guy), then checking loses value.