how would you play this river?

[JaysonWeber 0]

Saving river bets against fish = -EV.I used to be really weak/tight on the river, my aggression was identical to the turn on the river.. thats not good.It's hands like these that I used to check on and now bet on... and my bb/100 has gone up since... other than the last 2 weeks... .2bb/100 now!

Raising in this wa/wb scenario might also be -EV. We need an opponent to have a hand good enough to call us twice as often as he has a hand that crushes us to make this raise +EV. Either that, or we need a maniac/fish that will call a river raise with ANYTHING.Disrespecting your opponents is a great way to spew chips on the river, especially when their prime draw for the hand comes in on the river.

What Fish will fold to one more bet on the river here holding anything he felt was good enough to raise? What normal player is folding here for one more bet with any hand they felt good enough to raise with?AlexHoops said this guy was a fish.. I don't respect fishes... they're donkeys and easy to play against... Raise here. I gotta go for a while but I'll check back later.

[Absolute 0]

you have stated that you have read SSHE. the goal is to get maximum expectation. you dont do this by saving bets out of fear.

I just call when the value of the downside risk (losing two bets) is equal to the value of upside gain (gaining one bet from a call of my raise). That's expected value play at its most basic, no?Many moons ago, I asked you to name 8-10 other hands besides the two pair hands that would call us here (we tie one of these hands and beat 9). Since you concluded there were 8-10 hands that realistically beat us here, I need one of two things to make raising 0 EV instead of negative EV:1. I need the opponent to hold exactly two pair twice as often as he holds a set, a straight, or a flush.2. I need an opponent that will still call my raise after bluffing with one of 8-10 hands worse than two pair. You've got to go lower than A2 to fill this list out.

I was giving you 8-10 hands, but I still think that is generous given exactly how the hand is played.In order to do any math on this hand we would have to come together on what range of hands the opponent could be holding. I would assume that the ratio of of hands we are ahead of to hands we are behind is about 4.5:1.

[cdddc75 0]

What Fish will fold to one more bet on the river here holding anything he felt was good enough to raise? What normal player is folding here for one more bet with any hand they felt good enough to raise with?

I'd answer the first question but that would just be "results oriented". If you think a "fish" (LPP) isn't folding to a river raise, what do you think this "fish" has that is good enough to lead the turn and river? "Fish" usually don't fire out again UI on the river after they call a raise on the turn. Take that with a grain of salt though, because my handreading skills do suck.

[RISEorFall 0]

[i was giving you 8-10 hands, but I still think that is generous given exactly how the hand is played.

I'm not taking any sides on calling/raising here, but I think your thinking on this part of the arguement is flawed Absolute. If he's a fish, there's no reason to think he wouldn't play a set this way, or to think he wouldn't play a pair of 3's this way. Fish are by definition, bad players. I don't think it's that easy to put a random fish on a hand by the way he bet, because they play hands wrong.

[cdddc75 0]

[i was giving you 8-10 hands, but I still think that is generous given exactly how the hand is played.

I'm not taking any sides on calling/raising here, but I think your thinking on this part of the arguement is flawed Absolute. If he's a fish, there's no reason to think he wouldn't play a set this way, or to think he wouldn't play a pair of 3's this way. Fish are by definition, bad players. I don't think it's that easy to put a random fish on a hand by the way he bet, because they play hands wrong.

That one sentence is the best argument for either side of this endless debate.

[cdddc75 0]

In order to do any math on this hand we would have to come together on what range of hands the opponent could be holding. I would assume that the ratio of of hands we are ahead of to hands we are behind is about 4.5:1.

That is a very optimistic ratio with a potential Broadway and flush on board. Fish chase these hands all day.

[MrNiceGuy 0]

Interesting discussion, with respected posters on both sides.....Some basic "fish" characteristics -Will often chase without proper oddsWill occasionally bluff or semibluff (they do watch TV), but typically do so erratically and rarely.Other than the rare bluff, are only aggressive with a strong hand.Will often call down with any semi-strong hand.That said, the only truly reasonable hand I can put the guy on at the river given his betting is A5, in which case he will call a river raise (or possibly even 3-bet). There are 6 ways he could have A5.He could have Tx or 3x of spades and attempted a random semibluff at the turn. There are 17 ways he could have these hands. Here he will most likely 3-bet the river, but may just call.If he would semibluff the turn with two spades, he might also do so with two clubs, especially if he had a broadway gutshot to go with it. In that case, maybe he makes a follow-up bluff when the spade hits the river ..... but I think this is a remote possibility.It's unlikely, but he could have nothing (or next to nothing) and be attempting a random river bluff (although his turn play makes no sense in that case). Similarly unlikely are a set, straight, T3, or K5, given his odd overall betting. I also can't believe he would chase a naked backdoor flush draw on the flop with only two spades.-------------------------------------------------------So I'm putting the guy on either A5 (6 possible hands) or a flush (17 possible hands) 95% of the time.Overall, I can certainly see the case for just calling the river - there are more possible such hands, and would villain really chase preflop with just an A5 (other than specifically Ac5c)? And would a fish bet two-pair into a board that just made a flush possible?But, I still think it's unlikely enough that the guy would semibluff two spades on that turn that I agree with wrto and Absolute - I think a raise is called for here. The guy will certainly not fold (and may raise) with two pair, and may just call with a weak flush (although he'll probably reraise).And if the guy's a fish, I think it's unlikely (although possible) that he 3-bets two pair on that board, so I agree with just calling a three-bet.

[RISEorFall 0]

and would villain really chase preflop with just an A5

insert "fish" where "villain" is and I think you'll answer your own question.

[Absolute 0]

and would villain really chase preflop with just an A5

insert "fish" where "villain" is and I think you'll answer your own question.

You are making a huge mistake in SSHE strategy when you stop thinking of fish as opponents. Hand skills are crucial and applicable against any sort of opponent. The chances of him 'chasing' are no different then the chances of him overplaying a weak hand.You are getting way ahead of yourself. The object of our raise on the river for value.By the way, since its become a discussion about "fish". Most fish dont bet draws for value. They call. Thats what fish do. They call.

[RISEorFall 0]

The chances of him 'chasing' are no different then the chances of him overplaying a weak hand.You are getting way ahead of yourself. The object of our raise on the river for value.

Or of underplaying a big hand. You don't think a fish would have hit a set on the flop, called trying to slowplay or some crap, then raised the turn with his set? I do. I do think you can put him on a range of hands, but I also think the range of hands is bigger than what you are suggesting. I wasn't discussing the river play at all, just the hands opponent could have here.

[Absolute 0]

The chances of him 'chasing' are no different then the chances of him overplaying a weak hand.You are getting way ahead of yourself. The object of our raise on the river for value.

Or of underplaying a big hand. You don't think a fish would have hit a set on the flop, called trying to slowplay or some crap, then raised the turn with his set? I do. I do think you can put him on a range of hands, but I also think the range of hands is bigger than what you are suggesting. I wasn't discussing the river play at all, just the hands opponent could have here.

A set is the most unlikely hand that is beating you here.Even fish don't play sets this way. The only set he could possibly have is 33. And he raises that turn with 33 everytime.Fish like money too. They just dont make much of it.A backdoor flush is the only hand that is beating us here enough to make an argument for. I think this was established by both sides of the argument a while ago. Anyone who thinks the villian had 33, TT, KK, AA, or 55 need to get their head checked.

[JaysonWeber 0]

I dont understand the thinking here... Honestly what hands are you giving this guy!I am sorry.. I'm just in awe here..

[Absolute 0]

I dont understand the thinking here... Honestly what hands are you giving this guy!I am sorry.. I'm just in awe here..

this thread is FUBAR man.

[Rocketwadster 0]

Can someone please do some math to show the difference between calling and raising here please, as all I have been able to figure out right now is that opinions differ, with very little explanati0ns except to say that calling sucks or raising blows etc. :wink:

[princeof56k 0]

I believe the people saying CALL are agruing that fish tend to gun for any flush or straight much more often than they try go for the devastating 2 pair. That's why they are worried about the fish betting on the river when the third siuted card hits the board.While I agree that fish do tend to try for flushes all the time (think of playing any two cards because they are suited), I think the CALL people are forgetting that fish love to bluff. And their favorite bluff is trying to represent a flush (mainly because appears so obious on the board). A fish could very well bet this river with nothing. I think when you factor in the amount of times fish are bluffing at this, it becomes a raise situation. (btw, a true fish might actually fold to raise. I see it all the time)What would I do? In a standard holdem game (2/4, 3/6 ect) I would raise the river. In the 3/6/12 game at one of the casinos I go to, I just call the river (with that $12 river bet people go for flushes way more often and the threat of a 3-bet puts too many chips at stake relative to the pot).

[cdddc75 0]

While I agree that fish do tend to try for flushes all the time (think of playing any two cards because they are suited), I think the CALL people are forgetting that fish love to bluff. And their favorite bluff is trying to represent a flush (mainly because appears so obious on the board). A fish could very well bet this river with nothing. I think when you factor in the amount of times fish are bluffing at this, it becomes a raise situation. (btw, a true fish might actually fold to raise. I see it all the time)

That's why I think calling is best. There are three scenarios possible:1. Fish has us beat: We likely lose an additional two bets instead after we get three bet and call.2. Fish is bluffing at us: Fish will often fold to our raise, knowing that his bluff is destroyed. Our raise doesn't get paid off.3. Fish has a hand good enough to call while still losing (two pair or a pair of aces): We make a single extra BB when fish calls us down.The core disagreement here is that some posters believe that the fish will call our raise with a worse hand twice as often as he three bets us with a better hand. I love raising for value as much as anyone. I'm just convinced that there is much actual +EV in this raise.I'd love to see someone else actually quantify the +EV of the raise. It's easy to say "Raise because you're usually way ahead", but fish catch stupid hands sometimes too. I still think calling down is ultimately best because we're in a wa/wb scenario.

[Rocketwadster 0]

That's why I think calling is best. There are three scenarios possible:1. Fish has us beat: We likely lose an additional two bets instead after we get three bet and call.2. Fish is bluffing at us: Fish will often fold to our raise, knowing that his bluff is destroyed. Our raise doesn't get paid off.3. Fish has a hand good enough to call while still losing (two pair or a pair of aces): We make a single extra BB when fish calls us down.The core disagreement here is that some posters believe that the fish will call our raise with a worse hand twice as often as he three bets us with a better hand. I love raising for value as much as anyone. I'm just convinced that there is much actual +EV in this raise.I'd love to see someone else actually quantify the +EV of the raise. It's easy to say "Raise because you're usually way ahead", but fish catch stupid hands sometimes too. I still think calling down is ultimately best because we're in a wa/wb scenario.

Finally, some explanation as to why you think that way. As with many different "problems", pro's will routinely disagree about the correct course of action, and this seems like one of them. Lets just call this one a "No Fold" answer. :wink:

[cdddc75 0]

Finally, some explanation as to why you think that way. As with many different "problems", pro's will routinely disagree about the correct course of action, and this seems like one of them. Lets just call this one a "No Fold" answer. :wink:

Thought I had already posted that stuff mathematically before. That was just a brief summary.There are no right answers, but infinitely many wrong answers.

[DKE_XP120 0]

That's why I think calling is best. There are three scenarios possible:1. Fish has us beat: We likely lose an additional two bets instead after we get three bet and call.2. Fish is bluffing at us: Fish will often fold to our raise, knowing that his bluff is destroyed. Our raise doesn't get paid off.3. Fish has a hand good enough to call while still losing (two pair or a pair of aces): We make a single extra BB when fish calls us down.

I comepletely agree..Fish wakes up when he hits is flushdraw and bets the turn... gets raised and slows down, and bets out when he gets his runner-runner. -2 bets when he 3 betsAs he said, he's folding if he is bluffing, not calling an extra. No extra bets gained by raisinghe has a meak two pair and we gain 1 extra bet.

[Rocketwadster 0]

So is everyone now disagreeing with Absolute? For a while there I thought everyone was disagreeing with Smasharoo, but it seems to have changed... :wink:

[cdddc75 0]

So is everyone now disagreeing with Absolute? For a while there I thought everyone was disagreeing with Smasharoo, but it seems to have changed... :wink:

I think the ratio is still about 80% raise to 20% call.I don't mind being in the minority.

[Rocketwadster 0]

Me neither in this scenario. It's a question that doesn't have a cut-and-dried answer. Thankfully, the minority isnt getting bashed like JFarell did (who I agreed with on occasion before the banning). :wink:

[Absolute 0]

That's why I think calling is best. There are three scenarios possible:1. Fish has us beat: We likely lose an additional two bets instead after we get three bet and call.2. Fish is bluffing at us: Fish will often fold to our raise, knowing that his bluff is destroyed. Our raise doesn't get paid off.3. Fish has a hand good enough to call while still losing (two pair or a pair of aces): We make a single extra BB when fish calls us down.

I comepletely agree..Fish wakes up when he hits is flushdraw and bets the turn... gets raised and slows down, and bets out when he gets his runner-runner. -2 bets when he 3 betsAs he said, he's folding if he is bluffing, not calling an extra. No extra bets gained by raisinghe has a meak two pair and we gain 1 extra bet.

thats horrible bro.this is an easy easy easy raise.

[Rocketwadster 0]

Can't we just leave this one as a Non-Fold and move on? Both calling and raising have pros and cons. :wink:

[DKE_XP120 0]

After much discussion with Absolute, and rereading the whole thread.... I see this guy is not a fish, he is LAG..... You should have given his PT stats in the first place, calling this guy is a fish is very misleading here. This guy is a maniac, this is an easy raise on the river.I didnt read the part where it showed he was a maniac, and I was still argueing for a fish.