I learned this from Death Donkey

[KitCloudkicker]

2/4 game on stars (6 max). 5 handed.

A 35/25/2.5 raises UTG. Folded to me in the BB and I make a questionable call with 75o.

Flop is 8 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]6 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]4 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]. I check, he bets, I CR, he 3's, I 4, he calls.

Turn A [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. I bet, he raises, I 3, he 4, I call.

River T [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. I check, intending to CR.

sexy?

[HoneyBadger]

Not sure. I doubt he will 3 bet your c/r, but he may raise your donk bet...

So did he have 97o?

[Allday Everyday]

Awesome play so far postflop. What is the theory behind the river check? I think it's unlikely he checks it through, but if you donk it, he seems likely to raise, letting you 3-bet. Then again, the river check-raise allows us to cap river some of the time. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] If we bet-reraise river it might not get capped. I think it's an easy bet-reraise though.

[ QUOTE ]
So did he have 97o?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah. Standard.

[KitCloudkicker]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the theory behind the river check?

[/ QUOTE ]

Playing 6 max against aggros, I've noticed a trend. This is also something that seems to permeate 2+2.

Everyone loves to put opponents on draws. Especially if those opponents are seen as aggressive (I play a 30/20/2.2 style, so I'm quite aggressive).

Because of this, people love to "charge" those draws by betting and raising, even with hands that may not warrant it. This results in massive action on the flop and turn to make me "pay" for that flush draw/straight draw that I "obviously" have.

By the river, however, the draw either got there, or it didnt. There is no more "charging." Thus, the range of hands that a player will raise with becomes much narrower...in fact, many opponents wont raise the river without close to the nuts, regardless of how aggressive their stats make them appear. They will still bet if you show weakness, but will not often raise.

This river CR is simply a method of insuring that 2 bets go in on the river, when all too often in my experience, a river lead will result in only 1.


Results in white:

<font color="white"> Villain bet when I checked, and called the CR. He had A4s for two pair. </font>

[youlosepork]

doubt he has 79 raising utg.

[Allday Everyday]

[ QUOTE ]
Playing 6 max against aggros, I've noticed a trend. This is also something that seems to permeate 2+2.

Everyone loves to put opponents on draws. Especially if those opponents are seen as aggressive (I play a 30/20/2.2 style, so I'm quite aggressive).

Because of this, people love to "charge" those draws by betting and raising, even with hands that may not warrant it. This results in massive action on the flop and turn to make me "pay" for that flush draw/straight draw that I "obviously" have.

By the river, however, the draw either got there, or it didnt. There is no more "charging." Thus, the range of hands that a player will raise with becomes much narrower...in fact, many opponents wont raise the river without close to the nuts, regardless of how aggressive their stats make them appear. They will still bet if you show weakness, but will not often raise.

This river CR is simply a method of insuring that 2 bets go in on the river, when all too often in my experience, a river lead will result in only 1.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course I agree that opponents are more likely to reraise and 'make you pay' when there are draws showing. I also think this is important to remember and I like the concept. However, when we check-raise-cap the flop, then bet-reraise the turn I think the generic 35/25/2.5 UTG raiser has (somewhere along the line) stopped putting you on a possible draw and his continued aggression seems to speak more of his hand strength. As such I think you have misapplied the idea above.

In addition, in this hand, one of the possible draws actually hit the river. edit - Oh hang on, is this an argument for checking the river (a bet will give him more reason to call)? Well, we don't want it to get checked through...

As such I think you have made a mistake by check-raising the river. I really think he usually has a supreme hand and we should bet-reraise him on the somewhat blank river with what is usually a better or splitting hand.

However, what you wrote in white seems to be some form of weak initial evidence for what you were saying and I think a river check-raise is indeed correct if we could see his actual holding in this hand.

[Allday Everyday]

[ QUOTE ]
doubt he has 79 raising utg.

[/ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] He also bet-reraised the flop, then raise-capped the turn. All the while his oppoent was obviously not folding. It's either 79 or two random spades, right? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Allday Everyday]

Kit,

I've been rethinking. I think I was wrong to think it's a definate river bet-raise. I think it's close. I think there is obv a certain point where a player will not put another raise in (he will call or bet-call) when he doesn't hold the nuts. Perhaps you have found this point in this villain on this river, and have exploited it perfectly. After all, a straight from you must look likely after you 3-bet the turn and call his cap, and if he held a set, he has now missed his FH. He might now be realising that he doesn't in fact hold the nuts/lock hand. This point of non-raising in another player would often be difficult to know, sometimes even if we knew that player's precise hand. Draws on the board could certainly persuade them to raise when he is unsure and close to the non-raising point (this could not happen on the river) but I think you overestimate this element in your explanation for this hand. I reckon it's an interesting and close decision.

[MitchL]

Also, aggros always bet the river when checked to w/ made hand.

[StrictlyStrategy]

Yup. Unless they've been CR'd a lot(only once here)

He'll bet any two pair on the river here.