how would you play this river?

[cdddc75 0]

It's a value raise against a maniac and a chip spew against a competent opponent.

A lot of times when playing though (whether online or in a B&M), you may not know the type of player you are against (maybe you just sat down in a B&M and this is your third hand or so). Therefore, you need to generalize your thoughts on whether to just call here, or to raise. IMO, its a calling scenario. :wink:

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'emWith Pokertracker, I know whether he's a fish, a maniac, or whatever and can proceed accordingly.Clearly, this guy was not a fish as the OP categorized him.The opposition does matter, you know.

[Rocketwadster 0]

Party Poker 2/4 Hold'em I've been told many times that the level doesn't matter (even though I firmly believe that there are less maniacs at the higher levels than at 2/4).With Pokertracker, I know whether he's a fish, a maniac, or whatever and can proceed accordingly. Online play only, and you still may not know (he may have just sat down, new to the site, etc).Clearly, this guy was not a fish as the OP categorized him. The OP called him a fish, but based on what? If he was using pokertracker, should it not have shown a picture of Charles Manson istead of the little fishy?The opposition does matter, you know. Sure does, but the OP calling someone a fish may be his opinion based on the results of this hand onlyEither way, I think we are agreeing for once :!:

[AlexHoops 0]

My read was based on PT after only 100 hands. It was the only read I had on him so thats why in my mind, at the time, the call was my best choice. Had I known that after 1000 hands he would be classified a maniac I would have re-raised.Before posting I didn't go back to look at what he actually had, I wanted some opinions before I let the results affect my thinking.Now I feel as though I mislead everyone. Sorry, and thanks for all of the replies.

[cdddc75 0]

My read was based on PT after only 100 hands. It was the only read I had on him so thats why in my mind, at the time, the call was my best choice. Had I known that after 1000 hands he would be classified a maniac I would have re-raised.Before posting I didn't go back to look at what he actually had, I wanted some opinions before I let the results affect my thinking.Now I feel as though I mislead everyone. Sorry, and thanks for all of the replies.

If PT said he was a fish after 100 hands, then you classified him correctly. The numbers just hadn't caught up yet. No need to apologize, this hand stirred good discussion.

[Absolute 0]

I'm torn on this one.  Is our river raise a value raise?  Is it a bluff?  Is it raising with a medium weak hand?It seems like there have been a ton of postings about these situations lately, and every time I see it I recall Ferguson's article about betting a medium weak hand on the river (The worst play in poker).Sure, we have trips here with top kicker, but with a straight and a flush possible (and based on the betting, highly likely), I don't think this is a value bet.  You can't use the results from this one hand as justification.  I think it is a call... :wink:

It's a value raise against a maniac and a chip spew against a competent opponent.

no.its a raise all the time.Hey Smash, how about that results based thinking?weak!tight!

[wrto4556 0]

no.  its a raise all the time.

[Smasharoo 0]

no.its a raise all the time.Hey Smash, how about that results based thinking?weak!tight!Results based?I just wanted toknow what he had.I sitll just call there against bad players.I guess thast makes me weak tight. I'll have to settle for weak tighting my to 3BB/100 I guess.

[cdddc75 0]

Agree with smash. Opponent has hit flush, straight, or misplayed set often enough here that the bet gained from raising for value is negated by the two bets lost to a reraise at us.Villain only has to have a set or better 1/3 of the time to make the river raise unprofitable.

[NickTheKid 0]

Agree with smash. Opponent has hit flush, straight, or misplayed set often enough here that the bet gained from raising for value is negated by the two bets lost to a reraise at us.Villain only has to have a set or better 1/3 of the time to make the river raise unprofitable.

I disagree with smash, of all the times you gain that extra bet from this moron, you lose a bet rarely from the flush and straight.

[cdddc75 0]

Agree with smash. Opponent has hit flush, straight, or misplayed set often enough here that the bet gained from raising for value is negated by the two bets lost to a reraise at us.Villain only has to have a set or better 1/3 of the time to make the river raise unprofitable.

I disagree with smash, of all the times you gain that extra bet from this moron, you lose a bet rarely from the flush and straight.

You don't often lose one bet here though. You usually lose two.

[Absolute 0]

Agree with smash. Opponent has hit flush, straight, or misplayed set often enough here that the bet gained from raising for value is negated by the two bets lost to a reraise at us.Villain only has to have a set or better 1/3 of the time to make the river raise unprofitable.

you usually have your head on straight.i think its pretty important you know this is a raise every time

[Absolute 0]

Agree with smash. Opponent has hit flush, straight, or misplayed set often enough here that the bet gained from raising for value is negated by the two bets lost to a reraise at us.Villain only has to have a set or better 1/3 of the time to make the river raise unprofitable.

thats just not true.this is more often two pair or top pair than it is a flush or a set

[Smasharoo 0]

this is more often two pair or top pair than it is a flush or a setWhat are you basing this on?I'm basing my oppinion that you're beat enough not to warrant a raise on a million hands played against bad players.Just wondering.I assume you're basing on what some other winning players have said, but I'm curious.

[cdddc75 0]

Agree with smash. Opponent has hit flush, straight, or misplayed set often enough here that the bet gained from raising for value is negated by the two bets lost to a reraise at us.Villain only has to have a set or better 1/3 of the time to make the river raise unprofitable.

thats just not true.this is more often two pair or top pair than it is a flush or a set

I agree that the OP's hand wins here the majority of the time. It has to be good 67% of the time (assuming we get three bet by a set or above every time) to make raising here +EV though. I don't think raising here is as bad as open folding JFarrell style. I just think it is marginal. You might even argue that you need to be good 70% of the time to raise here, since some blufffing hands (like Q5 off) will fold to your river raise.Long post short, I think we're arguing over a tiny bit of EV.

[TJ_Eckleburg 0]

Just my $.02 as always...I think him not 3-betting the turn is the key. If he has QJ or a set on the turn he's making a horrendous mistake by not three-betting. With QJ, he's got to worry about the back door flush draw. With a set, he's got to worry about other draws materializing.That more than anything makes him wake up to betting the river into you, I think. I think top two pair is golden. That's why I'd say raise the river.

[Absolute 0]

this is more often two pair or top pair than it is a flush or a setWhat are you basing this on?I'm basing my oppinion that you're beat enough not to warrant a raise on a million hands played against bad players.Just wondering.I assume you're basing on what some other winning players have said, but I'm curious.

I thought I was the first person to argue for a raise on the river here, or justify any argument.This is no a situation where only better hands are calling a raise. This is a situation where worse hands are calling raises.What two spades is he raising with on this turn? The only hands I can possibly put him on are 109s and Q10s, and neither of those are likely either given how he played the hand.Its much more often A5, A10, A3, AQ, AJ, or some chimp playing K5, etc.That is what I am basing my opinion on.And the amount of times you get called with a worse hand will be for more value than the times you get called by a better hand.I don't even understand why this isn't within your understanding. What you suggested is weak/tight. I am not calling you weak/tight because everyone else has. I am calling you weak tight because this particular suggestion is exactly that.We could post this hand at 2+2 and they would all tell you the same thing.

[Absolute 0]

Agree with smash. Opponent has hit flush, straight, or misplayed set often enough here that the bet gained from raising for value is negated by the two bets lost to a reraise at us.Villain only has to have a set or better 1/3 of the time to make the river raise unprofitable.

thats just not true.this is more often two pair or top pair than it is a flush or a set

I agree that the OP's hand wins here the majority of the time. It has to be good 67% of the time (assuming we get three bet by a set or above every time) to make raising here +EV though. I don't think raising here is as bad as open folding JFarrell style. I just think it is marginal. You might even argue that you need to be good 70% of the time to raise here, since some blufffing hands (like Q5 off) will fold to your river raise.Long post short, I think we're arguing over a tiny bit of EV.

I think we are arguing over a significant amount of +EV that matters a good deal in the long run.It is important to make the right decision in these situations in SSHE consistently.

[cdddc75 0]

I thought I was the first person to argue for a raise on the river here, or justify any argument.This is no a situation where only better hands are calling a raise. This is a situation where worse hands are calling raises.What you suggested is weak/tight. I am not calling you weak/tight because everyone else has. I am calling you weak tight because this particular suggestion is exactly that.We could post this hand at 2+2 and they would all tell you the same thing.

Most better hands are reraising us. That takes the +EV out of raising when we are ahead the majority of the time. 1 (.66667) - 2 (.3333) = 0 (or pretty close anyway).Let's assume hypothetically that villain will call our raise with all worse hands and reraise will all better hands...Hero's hand is better 70% of the time, raising EV is .1 BB.75% of the time, raising is worth .25 BB80% = .40BB85% = .55 BB(etc.)Now the downward progression:65% winning rate = -.05 BB60% = -.20 BB55% = -.35 BB50% = -.50 BBFor raising to be worthwhile in this hypothetical, we've got be ahead at least 70% of the time. For this raise to have a lot of value, we've got to be ahead at least 75% of the time. I don't feel comfortable saying that we are good here 75% of the time with the range of hands that can beat us (set, QJ, 42, clubs).

[Smasharoo 0]

So you're not basing it on anything then. K, was just checking.I mean there are only 20 or so hands that beat you here. What are the odds he has one. slim surely.

[Absolute 0]

I thought I was the first person to argue for a raise on the river here, or justify any argument.This is no a situation where only better hands are calling a raise. This is a situation where worse hands are calling raises.What you suggested is weak/tight. I am not calling you weak/tight because everyone else has. I am calling you weak tight because this particular suggestion is exactly that.We could post this hand at 2+2 and they would all tell you the same thing.

Most better hands are reraising us. That takes the +EV out of raising when we are ahead the majority of the time. 1 (.66667) - 2 (.3333) = 0 (or pretty close anyway).Let's assume hypothetically that villain will call our raise with all worse hands and reraise will all better hands...Hero's hand is better 70% of the time, raising EV is .1 BB.75% of the time, raising is worth .25 BB80% = .40BB85% = .55 BB(etc.)Now the downward progression:65% winning rate = -.05 BB60% = -.20 BB55% = -.35 BB50% = -.50 BBFor raising to be worthwhile in this hypothetical, we've got be ahead at least 70% of the time. For this raise to have a lot of value, we've got to be ahead at least 75% of the time. I don't feel comfortable saying that we are good here 75% of the time with the range of hands that can beat us (set, QJ, 42, clubs).

There aren't that many possible holdings.Nowhere near 20.

[Smasharoo 0]

There aren't that many possible holdings.Nowhere near 20.Really?Want to bet $50 I can come up with 20? Or were you just using your deep analytical skills to come up with th wrong answer, like a ussual post.Let me know.

[speedz99 145]

So you're not basing it on anything then. K, was just checking.I mean there are only 20 or so hands that beat you here. What are the odds he has one. slim surely.

Based on the betting pattern I don't see 20 hands that can beat him. I think only a few flush hands would have played the hand this way, and it is more likely that we are up against two pair.Edit: but I'm way out of my league here so I should just shut up

[Absolute 0]

actually a set is impossiblea fish 3bet PF with 1010, KK, or AA.if he has 33, he plays much differently obviously.if he has 55 he doesnt lead the turn.so rule out the setsthe ONLY backdoor flush possibilities here I think are 910 and Q10 and maybe a few other oddball ones.we are ahead 75% of the time.

[Absolute 0]

There aren't that many possible holdings.Nowhere near 20.Really?Want to bet $50 I can come up with 20?

I rephrase.20 realistic holdings.

[Smasharoo 0]

I rephrase.20 realistic holdings.How many realistic holdings are you beating when he bets out here.Try thinking *before* posting some inane pointless wrong comment this time.See how that goes for once.