Super extra-de-dooper thin value betting ($50 NLHUSNG)

[TNixon]

Full Tilt Poker, $50 + $2.50 NL Hold'em Sit n' Go, 30/60 Blinds, 2 Players
LeggoPoker Hand History Converter

Hero (SB): 2,000
BB: 1,000

Pre-Flop: (90) A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] T[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] dealt to Hero (SB)
<font color="red">Hero raises to 150</font>, BB calls 90

Flop: (300) 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] (2 Players)
BB checks, Hero checks

Turn: (300) 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] [ 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] ] (2 Players)
BB checks, Hero checks

River: (300) 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] 7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 6[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] 2[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] [ K[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] ] (2 Players)
BB checks, Hero ???


-------------------

The way this game had played up to this point, I was fairly sure he didn't have a pair (this villain probably would have bet the river even with a pair of 2s, and yes, there are plenty of people that dumb).

He was also something of a blufftard, which led me to believe there was a fair chance he just had an ace he wanted to showdown.

He is also a calling station (I swear blufftard+callstation is the most common combination of attributes in most of the villains I play, and it's a WEIRD combination, I really don't understand it at all) and will call 100% with any pair, and there is at least some chance that he might have checked down something really weak, like 33 or A2. He is enough of a calling station that I'm probably 75-80% sure that if he *does* have an ace, he's going to call as much as 100 or 150. But since he is a blufftard, there's also some chance he will raise, which will destroy my read, and I'll almost certainly have to fold.

Is it ever worth a super-thin value bet on the end here? Or is that just hopeless/stupid/crazy talk, given that my read of what he has and what he'll do has to be almost perfect?

BTW, I might have missed a bet on the flop here, but this seemed like exactly the sort of flop he's could very easily hit hard enough to checkraise on. It wasn't til his second check that I thought he was probably either just trying to showdown an ace, or had given up on the hand entirely. In this case, there's not really any good reason to bet the turn is there? He *could* be drawing to more than just his pair 6 outs (or 3 outs, if he's really got an ace), and I think probably would have bet any sort of halfway decent draw on the turn. If I did miss a bet somewhere before the river, please feel free to comment on my ultra-weakness throughout the entire hand. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[People_Mover]

just check, you probably have the best hand anyway and you only get called by what beats you. bet the flop though fo' sho'

[dboy23]

well if you are that sure he cant have a pair go ahead and vbet the river. I still think you are better off just cbetting the flop.

[Fliff]

[ QUOTE ]
(I swear blufftard+callstation is the most common combination of attributes in most of the villains I play, and it's a WEIRD combination, I really don't understand it at all)

[/ QUOTE ]

Explanation: Villain observes you bet, they can attribute your betting behaviour to either value or bluff. Behavioural attribution is influenced by how the villain is likely to act themselves.
Thus
a bluffy villain is likely to attribute a bet to bluffiness, and will call you down lightly, resulting in stationism.

[ChicagoRy]

What type of hands do you expect to call you here?

What are the chances he bluff raises you? Do you plan to call a raise?

What are the chances that your read is not right, that he could have some sort of weak pair or something that beats you here?

[pokercurious]

One thing I've noticed is that there is an inflection point right around having an opponent outchipped 2:1. People tend to polarize their behavior here - they either go manic or tighten up a lot.

In my experience (disclaimer: $11 turbos, mostly), opponents tend to move away from their 1500-stack play: tighter players get frustrated and start shoving. The "blufftards" and calling stations start folding.

So especially if he's calling your preflop bet with ATC, you probably have a lot of value in cbetting the flop.

With that in mind, looking at the hand as played, I'd check the river. Mostly because of the stack sizes. The pot is 300 and he's got 850 left. With your hand and his rep, you can't bet enough to discourage an overshove that would force you to fold what has a decent chance of being the best hand.

[TNixon]

Yeah, I probably should have bet the flop. Part of the thought process there is that the fact that he called a raise preflop doesn't actually do anything at all to narrow his range (he called almost 100% of my raises, so I was raising strong hands, and limping almost everything else, fairly close to the same ranges that I would raise OOP to a limp). Which means that if I do get called, I have no clue where I am, because I saw him call similar boards earlier in the match with crap like Q high, no pair and drawing to just overcard(s). Of course, I guess that's all really just another argument in favor of cbetting. The two free cards just give him that many more chances to catch.

It does feel extremely weird to even be thinking about "protecting" ace-high though, and I think that's really what a cbet against this type of opponent boils down to, because he's calling the flop (and turn and river, probably) with a few worse hands sometimes, *all* the even halfway decent draws, and every single hand that has me beat. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Anyway, in the actual hand, I thought for quite a while about betting like 100, just because I felt so strongly that he was on a worse ace and would call a small to medium-sized bet, but in the end I chickened out, and he showed down A3. Maybe I should have gone with my gut, but my gut is wrong a lot, and this just felt like it would be SOOOO easy to be wrong.

[TNixon]

[ QUOTE ]
What type of hands do you expect to call you here?

[/ QUOTE ]
Every single hand that has me beat, as well as every ace, and maybe even some queens if he's convinced I'm just trying to buy it. (I see K, Q, and J-high nothing calls *far* more often than any sane person would ever actually expect to)

[ QUOTE ]
What are the chances he bluff raises you? Do you plan to call a raise?

[/ QUOTE ]
He seemed to be mostly the "bet when you check", or "bet out of position with nothing" sort of blufftard, so I don't think a bluff raise on the end is super-likely, especially since I haven't been bluffing a ton, but this sort of opponent is unpredictable enough that it's very tough to really get a concrete idea of how likely it is.

[ QUOTE ]
What are the chances that your read is not right, that he could have some sort of weak pair or something that beats you here?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think the chances that he has a weak pair are somewhere in the same neighborhood as a bluff-raise. Not really likely, but certainly within the realm of possibility. One thing I do know for sure is that if he does have me beat, he's going to call.

[ghettointlectual]

I think you put your opponent on a calling range that mostly beats you, though I am not sure I understand your read. IF that I am right then I think betting is negative +ev

[BarryLyndon]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...100 into 300 is probably slightly +EV here. I didn't read your post Nixon, but I was thinking 100 for most of the time. If he has Q high or less, he prob. folds, so you pick up 300 a decent chunk of the time. That chunk should make up for the percent times where he calls when you are beat. And, I do think that he calls with A3 or A5 or something a good chunk of the time. Ship it.

Barry