Standard?

[Aaron W.]

I'm betting this one and folding if it gets raised.

If you've been taking down small pots before, then villains could be getting a little looser with their calls and might call down with flopped second or third pair despite the scary board. You might also be getting called down by something really silly like 44/33/A-high if you've been picking up small pots for a while.

You may end up being beat by something like J9 or T9, but I really think those hands would have given you some action by now. It really looks like a calldown to look you up or a loose flop peel that picked up a draw (Tx for a gutshot or two hearts) on the turn.

[Befolder]

I also like a bet/fold here. I think we are raised on the flop w/ a better nine, raised on the turn w/ the straight. I think the only hand that villain has is that river card for one or two pair.

Villain could have 54s, 22-44, JT, QT and just not aggressive enough to open raise it. The first two groups of hands for a bet/fold. If he had the overcards examples, then a c/c would be best because the villain is not calling w/ J or Q high, but might bet it if we show weakness. I say bet/fold

[Entity]

I thought this one might be more interesting than I guess it is. A few thoughts:

I disagree 100% with anyone who says that in a shorthanded game, checking here allows him to play perfectly. His quick calls on the flop and turn are indicative of one of two things, IMO:

A hand that is fully prepared to showdown (this is mostly limited to hands that are worse than mine, however 2pr hands may be "scared" to raise here).

A drawing hand (most likely QT, QJ, or JT) that played passively pre and post-flop.

The only question that I really had at that point was whether he would bluff the river. In general he had shown signs of passivity, but at the time I felt that the ace was a card that people would try to represent, despite the fact that it really doesn't make much sense. This is coupled with the fact that there are less hands that should be calling with. Hands like 54s, 44-22, etc., may still call down, but I don't think it's nearly as likely as if the board were to pair, or river low.

On the river I'm getting 23:4 on a call. The pot isn't exactly gigantic, but there's certainly a chance that my opponent is bluffing. Personally I think the decision on the river is between c/c and c/f, as I don't think there is a wide enough range of hands for him to be holding that can pay me off (hoping that he pays off with KQ, KJ, after playing them like this preflop, etc. is overly optimistic).

At the time I guesstimated that he would bluff with JT or QJ often enough to make this call, so I check-called. IMO -- though I think it's close -- the river lines go something like:

c/c > c/f > b/f > b/c

If I had much more of a read on my opponent, I think I could shift this; however, all I know at this point is that he instacalled two streets and limped preflop. At the time I felt comfortable that I was good ~>20% of the time, and getting 5.75:1, I only had to be good 14.8% of the time on a check-call to show a profit.

If the river were a T, J, or Q I would have check-folded. I don't want to get wrapped up in the metagame aspects of my flop bets and how he's interpreting them as he very well may not be thinking about it much at all. That said, it all does come together to paint a bit of a picture.

Dunno if this was really a helpful hand or not. I guess it's just a reminder that limited reads mean that you're going to need to make sure that you never ascribe perfect rationality to your opponents before deciding on a particular action.

FWIW, I check-called and he showed Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]J[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. MHWG.

Rob

[MrWookie]

So we're thinking he's got QJ, QT, and JT (16 each) that will bluff more (and won't call) than 8T-8K (12 each), 54s (4), and 22-44 (6 each) will call, but check if you let them? Hmmm. The hand tallies are 48 vs 70, but there should probably be some discounting of those 70 that will call but not bluff.

I guess the real question is if he'll bluff raise. If he'll bluff bet sometimes if you check, but only choose to call or fold with this set of hands if you bet, then I like the bet. If he'll bluff raise with some frequency, as you imply, then I agree we should c/c.

[Shillx]

You are good way too often to check/fold. If I had to guess a hand I would say JT followed by some other similar hands (some of which you have beat). Of course he could have T9 or something but pot odds dictate a call imo. The ace is probably a poor bluffing card but most people don't really understand the dynamics of when to bluff and tend to do so at the wrong times. Pretty easy check and call imo.

[milesdyson]

I think bet/fold > check/call > check/fold.

Despite popular belief, there are definitely calling hands he can have that we beat. 8x, 6x, 5x namely. These hands rarely bet the river if we check, so a check/call derives most of its value from inducing bluffs from JT, QJ, and QT. The problem I see with check calling is I doubt an unknown 2/4 player bluffs often enough on the end to make the value you get from inducing bluffs greater than the value you get from inducing calls.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
I think bet/fold > check/call > check/fold.

Despite popular belief, there are definitely calling hands he can have that we beat. 8x, 6x, 5x namely. These hands rarely bet the river if we check, so a check/call derives most of its value from inducing bluffs from JT, QJ, and QT. The problem I see with check calling is I doubt an unknown 2/4 player bluffs often enough on the end to make the value you get from inducing bluffs greater than the value you get from inducing calls.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many 8x, 6x, and 5x hands openlimp preflop and make it this far instantaneously calling flop and turn bets, though? I'm honestly not sure of the answer to that one -- I thought 54s would have some pause before calling the turn unless it was specifically 5[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]4[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], and the same goes for a lot of 8x hands. I could very easily see T8, K8s/o (discounted offsuit?), Q8, so it's certainly a close decision, but that's outweighed by the fact that a lot of those hands may bet some subset of the time anwyay. While 22-44 and 54s are likely just checking behind, the question is what frequency he'll call with the remainder of the hands that he wouldn't bet. Then weighting that with the potential of inducing a bluff, which, as Shill points out, increases a bit on an Ace river.

I should probably do some handweighting and actually measure this one out, but since it's been so long since I played 2/4 it was hard to determine bluffing frequencies as well as valuebetting frequencies and such.

Rob

[DeathDonkey]

Interestingly at a smaller game like 5c/10c bet/fold would probably be better since there you will see 100% vpip etc. so his whole hand range has a lot more calling hands in it. At 2/4 I think you did right. Will be interested to hear your thoughts in the video.

-DeathDonkey