4 handed 100/200 blindwar hand

[murellus]

this is a check call. a bet would be nice, but the prospect of being raised really sucks.

[helpmeout]

I bet/fold he seems like a loose/passive TAG I wouldn't be expecting many river bluff raises from this guy.

I think he will call with most pairs but probably wouldnt value bet them.

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think check-folding here is your best bet. The draws seem to have gotten there and I cant imagine such a mediocre player betting the checked river without a made hand

[/ QUOTE ]

i guess you've never bluffed in your life? not seeing a showdown here is bad bad bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

After seeing about five responses with no explanation just indicating that check-fold is dumb, I'm choosing one randomly and responding (actually, CDC does offer a tiny bit of explanation here, so it wasn't the best choice).

First, you all saying it is so does not make it so. If it is SO OBVIOUS why check-fold is bad, why doesn't somebody step up and give an explanation?

I admit that when I read this hand, check-fold was not my preference. However, here's a perfectly logical defense of check-fold:

For villain to bluff, he must hold a busted draw. However, given the board and the river, there are virtually no busted draws available. Hearts got there, and virtually every straight draw either completed or paired.

That means we only have to be concerned that he will value bet a weaker hand. However, this villain is passive. Further, for him to value bet, he has to think we will call with a weaker hand. This makes value-betting, say, bottom pair, very unlikely.

On the other hand, he'll certainly value bet aces, flushes, 2 pairs, and straights. So we have to compare the odds that he holds one of these hands to the odds that he this passive player is making a value bet with a weaker hand then what we hold. Concluding that a fold is the best play in this small pot is not outrageous.


Now, since it is so ridiculously obvious to everyone that check-fold is wrong, please explain why this logic is so laughably far off.

-Eric

edit: PS. I kept reading the thread and am up to 8 people now that have said check-folding is bad but give no explanation, including the guy who originally suggested a check-fold. Too funny.

[tongni]

Ok, I'll respond. I might have already responded in this thread, but I didnt feel like looking. If he has an ace he's not likely going to raise it on the river, and everyone always semibluffs flush draws somewhere. Bet is easy, call is feel dependant but you have too much hand to let go usually. If he rivered 2p then oh well, but I think his hand range is any pair. If you responded with check fold then please stop posting for the good of the forum.

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
If you responded with check fold then please stop posting for the good of the forum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who do you think you are? The arrogance of this is comical. The forum can only benefit from an open exchange of intelligent thought. The fact that an idea may appear to be incorrect doesn't mean it's not worth discussing.

Personally, I think betting is correct as well, for much the same reason you stated, he'll call with so many hands. However, I think that check-call may well be inferior to check-fold, but no one has said anything about check-call being stupid, have they?

I still haven't heard anyone explain why check-fold is so stupidly inferior to check-call, which no one seems to complain about. Maybe you can shed some light on the subject? Perhaps you could give a hand range a tight passive opponent who bets after we check. What would his postflop aggression have to be before you would consider folding to his bet?

-Eric

[tongni]

[ QUOTE ]
Who do you think you are? The arrogance of this is comical.

[/ QUOTE ]

The triple that best describes the internet acronym I felt when reading your post is:
{lol, omg, rofl}
{40, 20, 40}

[J. Sawyer]

c/r

edit- he'll bet a shitload of hands and call enough w/ less than TT to make it good

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Who do you think you are? The arrogance of this is comical.

[/ QUOTE ]

The triple that best describes the internet acronym I felt when reading your post is:
{lol, omg, rofl}
{40, 20, 40}

[/ QUOTE ]

Good answer. You've shown what a hypocrit I am to accuse you of being arrogant in your post when I myself have tried to introduce new ideas to the forum.

Oh wait, that doesn't make any sense at all. In fact, now that I think about, it's pretty stupid. Sadly, I can't compliment your attempted comeback by calling it even, say, original. It was... hmmm... surprising. Good job there.

I suppose check-folding is just so obviously worse than any other option, that you can't bring yourself to explain why. It probably be like trying to explain why the world is round, or why mother's love their children. It just is.

I'm sorry to have wasted the time of a poker god such as yourself, who doesn't need things like "explanation" to know why one move is better than another, and who thinks that "new ideas" are impossible since you already understand the game completely.

You must find this game very boring though.

-Eric

[Your Mom]

[ QUOTE ]
My apologies, I THOUGHT i wrote check/call, not check fold...my bad

[/ QUOTE ]

don't lie. you said you can't imagine anything other than a made hand betting here, which indicates you would fold.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My apologies, I THOUGHT i wrote check/call, not check fold...my bad

[/ QUOTE ]

don't lie. you said you can't imagine anything other than a made hand betting here, which indicates you would fold.

[/ QUOTE ]