I'm bored

[Niediam]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think you would need to find a player who has a very high bluff-raising/misplaced raising frequency before making a bet-call correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

What exactly is 'very high'?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's for the math to show.

[ QUOTE ]
B/f isn't great because you will fold to many winners. If you had a very good read on this guy and you were sure he wouldn't raise as a bluff or with a weaker hand that you beat then folding would be fine. But here it's just impossible for you to know that.

C/c isn't good because there are a ton of hands that villian will call a bet with that he won't bet himself that we beat.

[/ QUOTE ]

This line just isn't very consistent. You think he's going to raise the river with lots of bad hands as a bluff or whatever, but you don't think he's going to bet if I check to him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. It's not inconsistant at all. That's like saying somebody can't fold 72o and still raise AA preflop bcause they either raise hands or they don't. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I don't think that villian raises a ton. But the river card is the scariest possible card that could fall. Even marginal players understand what a scare card is. Plus he could have hit a weaker ace and be raising for value. Counting the rake we have to be good here around 1 in 7. It's hard for me to imagine that this isn't the case.

If villian has something like a pair of sixes there isn't much of a reason for him to bluff because it's not so likely that we fold hands that he beats. But if he had something like JT he may bluff trying to get us to fold queen or king high.

[scpi10]

I agree most players don't think about what others have. The comment about the stakes had to do with the fact that at lower levels people will raise with Ax here.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think that villian raises a ton. But the river card is the scariest possible card that could fall. Even marginal players understand what a scare card is. Plus he could have hit a weaker ace and be raising for value. Counting the rake we have to be good here around 1 in 7. It's hard for me to imagine that this isn't the case.

If villian has something like a pair of sixes there isn't much of a reason for him to bluff because it's not so likely that we fold hands that he beats. But if he had something like JT he may bluff trying to get us to fold queen or king high.

[/ QUOTE ]

A player who is going to bluff raise a scare card will also bluff the scare card when you check to him. In fact, he is *MORE LIKELY* to bluff because you've shown weakness.

Also, many players that I've observed at these tables do not recognize that you should not bluff or value bet with a marginal hand. Players who like to bluff JT will also bluff K-high and value bet bottom pair.

Again, I challenge those who think this is a bad bet-fold to give villain a hand range preflop and on the turn call and find a reasonable betting when checked to/raising a bet frequency that makes bet-calling better than both check-calling and bet-folding. My assertion is that the only way it works is if villain's bluffing/raising frequency is quite high, which will end up being seen as unreasonable.

The only two river lines that make sense here (in my mind) are check-call or bet-fold. If you're going to call a raise, you're better off just check-calling.

[Reaction]

[ QUOTE ]

The only two river lines that make sense here (in my mind) are check-call or bet-fold. If you're going to call a raise, you're better off just check-calling.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. FWIW, from the get go I thought it close.

[ QUOTE ]
I challenge those who think this is a bad bet-fold

[/ QUOTE ]

I do a bit of work to support my assertion that c/c is better then b/f.

The following is subject to change given your image and you can dispense with or include ones that I miss:

For c/c to be better then b/f he needs to bet w/ more beaten hands when checked to then beaten hands he would call with. Since it is always 1 BB to showdown all hands villain raises w/are null.

Range at river decision to bet or check:
55,88-TT = 21 hands (JJ?)
A7-AQ = 40 hands (no AT)
Kxd,Qxd,Jxd plus some S.C. ~ 32
89s not d – 3

Assumptions for villain:
at least calls with all Ax hands and all PP
bets all A hands
Raises suited and maybe AQ, AJ

Hero is ahead of A8-A9 – 16
Behind A7, AJ, AQ – 24

16 betting when checked to
Vs.
21 checking behind

In a 6BB pot 16 hands is worth 16/96 * 6BB ~ 1BB
In a 5BB pot 21 hands = 21/96 * 5BB ~ 1.1

So, b/f is only better by a tenth of a BB if villain never bluffs. Villain only has to bluff ~1.5 hands (1.6%) of his hands to make B.E.

Thoughts? Corrections? Omissions?

[CrMenace]

Reaction, I'm not following why the pot size is different in your two different scenarios. Nor am I sure why we care about pot size in this decision. When comparing b/f to c/c, we're talking about winning or losing one more bet -- if his range of calling hands we beat is bigger than his range of betting hands we beat, b/f is better than c/c, period. Any bluff bets when checked to are gravy for c/c. Risk of bluff raises also weigh towards c/c.

The other complexifying factor in this scenario is that we're not just considering b/f and c/c, we're considering b/c as well.

[Xylocain]

The pot size is everything when it comes to the bet-fold line. For this to be correct we must be ahead something like 45-55% when we are called (adjusting for rake and folding a better hand which happens like never) and we are allowed to fold incorectly like never (since we must make up for the 10BB mistake by our edge the times we are called by a worse hand ).

The check call is much more forgiving if we are ever ahead in big pots and it also makes us unbluffable. The downside is of course that we miss some value from weaker hands that may call.

My money is still on the b/c

[James.]

50 hands is basically an unknown.

IMO you're not giving up much if you never, ever fold top pair in a sb vs. bb confrontation. especially 1/2 6max.

the ace on the river is the ultimate scarecard. you'll find some goof valuebluffraising 33 or K7 plenty often enough to call. people do retarded things on paired boards in blind battles.

it might be of consideration that villain has seen you bet/fold in the session. combine his possible perception of you as someone who is capable of folding with his thought that you're FOS raising first in from the small blind and it equals a showdown with top pair.

[Reaction]

[ QUOTE ]
if his range of calling hands we beat is bigger than his range of betting hands we beat, b/f is better than c/c, period. Any bluff bets when checked to are gravy for c/c.

[/ QUOTE ]

True

[ QUOTE ]
Reaction, I'm not following why the pot size is different in your two different scenarios. Nor am I sure why we care about pot size in this decision. When comparing b/f to c/c, we're talking about winning or losing one more bet –

[/ QUOTE ]

No. As calculated, we are winning/losing 0.10BB.
It is really consider percentages of the pot size. How does a Pot size of 11 and 12BB affect the outcome?

[ QUOTE ]
The other complexifying factor in this scenario is that we're not just considering b/f and c/c, we're considering b/c as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I never was considering b/c an option. With the stipulations and range I made, half are raising. I think that clearly rules out b/c.