Thin spots on the end

[Scott Y.]

So I've been thinking a lot about "value-bluff" spots postflop, especially on the river, where you have a good to great 1-way hand heads-up that figures to take the high a large % of the time. Your opponent is a very aggressive thinking LAG who plays at least OK for mid/high stakes shorthanded. If he has a good piece of the board he'll let you know always, because you sometimes bet/fold and take free cards. You've been opening a large range of hands in this spot b/c you like to play hands vs. him in position. He resents this and rarely folds.

OK, so here's an obvious one:

You open TT23 otb and see the flop heads-up w/ the big blind. You lead a dry 42J board and are called, turn is a 7 check-check, river is a blank T and the blind leads into you. I think that's a pretty easy raise vs. most guys. He might have a worse high hand and call, he might have a made low and fold, etc. He could also have 98 and scoop (this particular player never has JJ).

So the only hand that beats you is a little worse than random b/c it has no correlation to the flop and looks like [censored] preflop. This seems trivial but it's more common than you think - i.e. what if I made JT here? The only hand I realistically worry about is TT, maybe 77, based on this player's ram+jam flop strategy (which is more transparent than he realizes). And those hands aren't very realistic. Is it worth raising? Or what if the river was a 6 and you make J6? Again, 53 isn't super-realistic for this opponent, although it is possible.

Alternatives basically go on forever. Maybe no one cares about this stuff, but I wanted to think it through myself so I'm posting it. I really do think it's important though.

[gergery]

Sounds like this guy just out-luckboxed you, lol.

yes, i bet there with TT too. but i expect to split maybe 75% of the time, scoop ~15-20% and get scooped 5-10% so i think its EV+ but not by a huge amount.

-g

[TxRedMan]

i was in a spot like this in vegas last weekend against an agg. 2p2 hold'em player who was at my omaha table killing time.

i flopped the nut low, check called the flop and turn, and bet into him on the end when i made TPTK on a non threatening board (no flush, one gutter straight poss.)

of course i had the nut low, but i also had a decent high hand on the end that i figured beat most of the hands he raised with PF assuming he had the low, too.

similar concept I guess.

in the spot you're talking about, i think the idea is to mix up your play enough that when you're at the end with a good high hand, these types of plays can get your opponent to lay down a low hand.

giving your opponents tough decisions is always a good approach.

[TxRedMan]

i disagree with this not being significantly +e.v.

if the player is exactly as described, he bets the flop with an OE wheel draw/straight draw.

if he ever lays down a low hand, it's very much +e.v.

and, this sort of play on the end, when he calls and sees it, makes him far more likely to pay off on two way hands in the future.


immediate EV is small, but IMHO making this bet or raise has a lot of EV long term.

[donger]

I think you're more likely to be scooped on the second example (rivered 6) where the straight is a low one rather than a high one. It's way more likely for someone to have a random gutshot when it's worth half the pot. He's also less likely to fold when there's 4 low on the board and a live low could be worth a partial rebate.

Re: the first example..
I make raises like this all the time, especially against bad lags. He could have two pair here hoping that you fold a bad low, then hope that you are raising a low and pay you off.

Re: raising two pair on the river (JT).. how often does this type of player checkraise the turn? It seems like a raise here could have some foggy value, but if he's the type to jam here with a low+pair type hand and fold you out of half the pot, it might not be worth it.

[gergery]

[ QUOTE ]

immediate EV is small, but IMHO making this bet or raise has a lot of EV long term.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely agree, just didn't spell that out in last post