call this bluff?

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
ok so lets me more specific everyone. consensus is that if i plsy turn like i did, calling the river is +EV?


(which is why i posted, i was really itching to call)

this is a seperate question from whether my turn play sucked or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends on how you read your opponent on the turn. If you really do believe that his range is primarily bluffs/draws then you have to expect that he's going to be aggressive enough to fire another barrel on the river, and calling there would be clearly +EV.

On the other hand; in spots like this, I tend to play conservatively. His line is somewhat odd, but I'm going to give him credit for a real hand here until I have a more solid reason not to. So I would not read his turn range as primarily bluffs/draws, in which case calling the river would be clearly -EV, as would the turn.

Really you just have to go with your reads, or there's no point in having them in the first place.

[4_2_it]

River is a snap call after making the turn call of the check raise. Calling vs folding to the turn seems pretty close to 0 EV to me vs villain as described.

I don't hate this near as much as I thought I would, but I am short handed calling station.

[thedustbustr]

[ QUOTE ]
f you really do believe that his range is primarily bluffs/draws then you have to expect that he's going to be aggressive enough to fire another barrel on the river

[/ QUOTE ]
you aren't the first person to say this...

i think its very reasonable for him to semibluff the turn and give up on the river. its also reasonable for him to shove the river.

i dont think it is so cut and dry that if he semis the turn, he absolutely will bluff the river.

[The Vookster]

Looks ok to me. I can see argument for checking the turn. the spade draw would be runner runner. If he called for the straight draw, the 4 probably was not his card. 5 or 8 is scarier. That it is an argument for the pot control. i'd fold river.

[thedustbustr]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't hate this near as much as I thought I would

[/ QUOTE ][img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
6, but I am short handed calling station.

[/ QUOTE ]

me too it was a disciplined fold for me i really wanted to call but i know im a cs and its my biggest leak

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
f you really do believe that his range is primarily bluffs/draws then you have to expect that he's going to be aggressive enough to fire another barrel on the river

[/ QUOTE ]
you aren't the first person to say this...

i think its very reasonable for him to semibluff the turn and give up on the river. its also reasonable for him to shove the river.

i dont think it is so cut and dry that if he semis the turn, he absolutely will bluff the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

The thing is the odds you're being laid. You're getting 2:1 on the river. He only has to follow through with a bluff 33% of the time to make it a profitable call. In other words, you'd have to be 66% certain he never follows through with a bluff on the river to justify a fold. This alone makes it a must-call on the river, if you do believe he's bluffing/drawing on the turn.

[thedustbustr]

[ QUOTE ]
you'd have to be 66% certain he never follows through with a bluff on the river to justify a fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

it doesnt work how you describe here. i'd word it, he has to be bluffing 33% of the time. i dont know the answer to that question, but id guessits somewhere between 5% - 50%, so i folded.

[tubasteve]

[ QUOTE ]
whys that? its either a good call or its not

i may have miscommunicated, i dont see it as a "stand" - we havent been in a big pot, only preflop or flop stuff that didnt go any further.

[/ QUOTE ]

i mean its not a good call, and i was mainly referring to your turn call which has gotten you into this river predicament. like everyone has said, if you call turn you pretty much have to intend on calling a river bet. with different stack sizes, i could see calling the turn and giving up if he fires again, but he has set himself up for a river PSB shove so i think you have to expect that he is gonna shove a high % of the time.

[Dire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
you'd have to be 66% certain he never follows through with a bluff on the river to justify a fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

it doesnt work how you describe here. i'd word it, he has to be bluffing 33% of the time. i dont know the answer to that question, but id guessits somewhere between 5% - 50%, so i folded.

[/ QUOTE ]

The % is an aggregate. You're not asking yourself what % of the time you think he's bluffing in this exact spot in this exact hand. That's impossible to determine, you're not a mind reader. You're just asking yourself what % of his entire range in this spot is a bluff.

And this is a conditional probability. By this I mean that his frequency of bluffing on the turn is going to have some direct correlation with his frequency of bluffing on the river.

I mean consider the 5% number you offered on the river. That's just not rational. One possible way to result in a 5% bluff range on the river is to say that he bluffs the turn 25%, and fires again only 20% on the river. Surely you believe that he bluffs the turn WAY more as well as firing again way more than 20%.

You just need to figure out what percents you put him at. If you think he bluffs the turn 80% and fires again 66% then it's a clear call with greater than 52% expected equity in a 2:1 spot! Although this is a naive calculation in that I'm not counting the times he was bluff/semi-bluffing the turn with a Q or flush draw that hit on the river.

In a very long winded way, I'm just saying that the turn and river are directly connected in this spot. If you think he's bluffing the turn, you're basically obligated to call the river since most people willing to bluff the turn in a spot like this are going to be very capable of firing another barrel. When that scary overcard hits, the chances of them firing the next barrel shoot up even higher.

[thedustbustr]

i'd wager my bankroll that he didnt set up the river pot size on purpose. does that affect your argument at all? your last sentence seems to imply that his deliberate bet sizes make it a call