Bet/Fold on the River Line

[Befolder]

This is a line I'm familiar with, but not very good at applying.

Reasons I've heard to use this line:

<ul type="square">[*]When you would call a bet if you checked on the end, but could confidently fold if you bet and were raised (draw(s) come in on river)[/list]
For some reason my mind just went blank on the other reasons to use it.

Someone please finish my list of situations to use it.
Also, where is it applied where it shouldn't be?

I think one of my fears of using the line is getting bluff raised off the best hand on the river, but from what I remember, the river bluff raise is rare at these levels.

I just need a review so I can more confidently apply this tactic. I'm definetly losing value.

[jrz1972]

[ QUOTE ]
Reasons I've heard to use this line:

<ul type="square">[*]When you would call a bet if you checked on the end, but could confidently fold if you bet and were raised (draw(s) come in on river)[/list]

[/ QUOTE ]

That's pretty much it if you're out of position. Bet/fold is a good line when you're going to call a bet anyway, villain will always bet a hand that beats you, villain will call with some worse hands, and villain is unlikely to raise with anything you beat.

When you're in position, you need to be a little more careful about betting, because the "I was going to call a bet anyway" rationale no longer applies. Otherwise it's similar. Villain needs to be willing to call with a worse hand, and he needs to not be likely to check/raise with stuff you beat.

I tend to use this line more when I'm in position. OOP, I tend to bet/fold passive opponents and check/call aggressive opponents (bluff inducer).

[Xhad]

Basic criteria for a non-bluffing bet-fold on the river:

-You have to call a bet if you check
-Your opponent will call your bet with some worse hands that would check behind if you check
-Betting will not cause your opponent to fold a lot of hands that would have likely bet had you checked (mostly busted draws)

The reason you bet-fold vs. check-call is because your opponent will often call with worse hands (that would have checked behind) but will tend to bet with his better hands. The basic reasoning is that the extra money you make from the calls with weaker hands make up for any money lost from getting bluff raised, or occasionally getting called by a better hand that would check behind, or check-calling and picking off a bluff.

IMO the typical spot where this line is misapplied is when your opponent has few or no calling hands that are worse than yours. In that situation your bet has no point because it's really just a counterintuitive value bet, so you either check and call hoping for a bluff. Or, if your opponent isn't bluffing or betting a weaker hand often enough, you check-fold instead.

[Befolder]

That sounds about on par Xhad.

[detruncate]

In position:

It's a straight forward value estimation. If we think we're a 50+% favourite when called (but not 66%) + our estimated chance of being bluff raised is small (type of Villain, type of board, action to this point, etc.), we can fire away. But we have to remember to fold when raised -- this can be surprisingly difficult sometimes.

When OOP:

a) You're getting sufficient odds to see a showdown vs his most likely range.

b) The board is scary enough that Villain will check behind most or all of the hands you're ahead of but call a bet with them.

c) You can fold to a raise, since it's overwhelmingly likely to be from a hand that beats you.

This is sometimes a clear value bet, but often it'll be in the cause of attempting to minimize a positional disadvantage.

For example, you're OOP in a 10 BB pot and know you're not a 50+% favourite when called, but estimate you're good ~35% of the time. Pot is laying you sufficient odds to show down vs his calling range. Clear check/call, right?

How about when he'll check behind the hands we beat + value bet most of his winners? Seems like we can now just check and fold, no? We show down all the times we're ahead (and occasionally when we're behind), and fold every time we're bet into since he's only betting his winners. Groovy.

Problem is, if he bluffs (defined here as betting a weaker hand) with even close to the right frequency he puts us in a difficult spot. We're going to want to call to try to collect our share of the pot, but checking and calling means we're giving up on collecting chips from the 35% of his range we beat + he'd call in favour of collecting chips from his bluffing range.

So... if we're resigned to putting 1 bet into the pot anyway, wouldn't we prefer it to happen as often as possible when we're ahead? If we bet/fold rather than c/c, all those hands we beat but will check behind suddenly come back into play. We lose about the same amount when we're behind, but we now make back a greater % of the BB we spend. Not a value bet as such, but we do probably come out ahead relative to the alternative.

In the end, it comes down to how often Villain bluffs. If he plays 100% straight forwardly, we can check and fold. But we need a strong read, and I don't know most of my opponents well enough to want to fold a lot of rivers in what are often reasonably big pots -- I don't have to be wrong very often to make it a bad idea. We also have to worry about it being a self defeating strategy. Even your least aware opponents will start to notice if you often fold on the end when you check (especially after carrying the action), and suddenly everyone becomes less predictable.

If Villain bets any 2 when checked to, we're obviously better off checking and calling. However, most people (even aggressive opponents) won't do this. They may bluff often enough for us to want to show down, but it usually won't make up for the amount we forfeit by checking. If he bluffs 20% of the time in a 10 BB pot in our example, we know we lose 1 BB 65% of the time, but only win 1 BB 20% of the time (15% of the time he checks through a loser). However, if we bet instead of check, we'll lose the same 1 BB 65% of the time, but win 1 BB 35% of the time. It might be slightly more complicated than this if Villain gets to the river with a much wider range than his calling range + will bluff some hands he wouldn't call with, but you get the idea.

Unless his bluffing frequency at least equals our equity when called, it's better to bet/fold than check/call in these sorts of spots if we're committed to a showdown.

We're probably also more likely to underestimate our average opponent's calling range + overestimate his bluffing frequency over time than the opposite, so bet/folding will likely lead to fewer mistakes overall too.

[schnukums]

Good thread. Just posting here so it can go back to top of the list. Very good stuff here.

[Nogatsira]

bet/fold &gt; check/call because with the check/call you always have the chance to win with the worst.

If it goes check/check then you might have missed 1 BB because he would call down with a worse hand.
Those 1 BB's in all those hands make the difference in making 2BB/100 or 3BB/100 (might vary even more)

[Buzz-cp]

wow, detruncate has said it all! nh