Tripskies

[sethypooh21]

Miles,

[ QUOTE ]
Villaim seems kind of stupid/passive

[/ QUOTE ]

Otherwise I C/R.

To elaborate, this makes his turn raising range stronger, which means more sets/straights/2pair with an 8, and that he's not VB the river especially wide. In this spot, I'd much rather 1-2 bets go in on the river than 0 or 3.

[Absolution]

[ QUOTE ]
Miles,

[ QUOTE ]
Villaim seems kind of stupid/passive

[/ QUOTE ]

Otherwise I C/R.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya, that read plus a turn raise generally makes me think more than just a pair and probably not 2nd pair, but not necessarily. That's why I like the check call. His range might be wider than I posted, but I can't fold to a 3-bet.

[Gurravasa]

[ QUOTE ]
Even a passive will usually valuebet top pair in a blind battle, won't he? He's probably not free showdowning low pairs too much, and he could still have a busted hand. I think check/call is best.

[/ QUOTE ] A passive will also call top pair on river so a a check/call gains nothing when villain has top pair. The problem with check/calling is that a passive villain will check behind many hands that he would call one bet with. A c/r could be fine if we can fold to a 3-bet. I go for the safe line where we put 1 or 2 bets in the pot on river with our strong hand instead of 0, 2 or 3 where we are always beaten if we have to put 3 bets in the pot.

[milesdyson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even a passive will usually valuebet top pair in a blind battle, won't he? He's probably not free showdowning low pairs too much, and he could still have a busted hand. I think check/call is best.

[/ QUOTE ] A passive will also call top pair on river so a a check/call gains nothing when villain has top pair. The problem with check/calling is that a passive villain will check behind many hands that he would call one bet with. A c/r could be fine if we can fold to a 3-bet. I go for the safe line where we put 1 or 2 bets in the pot on river with our strong hand instead of 0, 2 or 3 where we are always beaten if we have to put 3 bets in the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]
he never checks behind a 9 and a passive player very rarely raises a 9 if you donk the river. c/c and b/c both make one bet from 9x.

[mute]

Looks like an easy checkraise to me. Regardless check >>> bet.

[Sushiglutton]

CR?

[lippy]

I c/r. I completely disagree w/ anyone that doesn't want at least, hopefully only, two best going in on this river...

[acehole60]

wtf, I really think some of you are too tight... c/c??? we have the nuts as far as I'm concerned.

Passive (not ultra passive): b/c > c/r/f > c/c.
Normal: c/r >> b/c > c/c.


[ QUOTE ]
I go for the safe line where we put 1 or 2 bets in the pot on river with our strong hand instead of 0, 2 or 3 where we are always beaten if we have to put 3 bets in the pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

We won't get one bet in with b/c if he doesn't have anyting to call with.

[sethypooh21]

[ QUOTE ]

We won't get one bet in with b/c if he doesn't have anyting to call with.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's passive so it's sort of assumed that his calling range > betting range. Against unknown, I C/R close to 100% here.

[frenchpignouf]

We don't have the nuts. We loose against 66, 99, 44, T7, 75, 84, 86, 89 or a better 8. The last 8 is the 8 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img], so there is a lot of combo draws on the turn. We can count 8J-8A like 10 hands imo.

That is 18+16+12+9+10=65 hands. All this hands 3 bet the river, so we need almost 130 hands which bet the river AND call the raise. A passive player don't raise the turn, bet the river and call a raise with 6X.

We have 94 95 96 97 9T 9J 9Q 9K 9A=99 hands, we can add discounted TT-AA and worst 8X but it is hard to get 130 hands. Moreover a passive player don't wait always the turn to raise with A9, but T7 is always played like that and almost always 66. So c/c>c/r>b/c against a passive player imo.