is chris "jesus" ferguson right about this

[BiggestE22 0]

WORST PLAY IN POKERThere’s a play that I occasionally see at the poker table that is so horrible it’s hard to comprehend. I’ve even seen it made by some very highly regarded players, too. The play is to bet a medium-weak hand on the river.Why is this play so bad?There are basically only two reasons to bet on the river. First, you’re betting for value—where you expect to win even when you get called. The only other reason to bet is as a bluff, hoping your opponent will fold the winning hand. Your strongest hands work as value bets, and your weakest hands can be used as bluffs. The problem with betting these medium-weak hands is that your opponent will only fold hands that are worse than yours—and if you get called you are almost certainly beaten. So why bet? I was playing Hold'em recently (it was the limit event at this year’s WSOP) and a heads-up hand got down to the river with very little action. My opponent bet and all I had was AK with a board of something like Jc 9d 2s 9s 8c. I obviously couldn't beat any of my opponent's legitimate value-betting hands. However, I decided to call as a defensive measure against being run over. I remember thinking that my hand was the absolute worst hand I could justify calling with, and there were plenty of worse hands that I would have folded. I was happily shocked when my opponent turned over AQ. What was he thinking? Was he betting for value? Certainly not. He can't possibly expect me to call with enough hands worse than his to justify a value bet. So it must be a bluff. But in this case there weren't any winning hands that I was going to fold—so the bluff couldn't possibly work. In fact, all my calling hands beat him, and any hand I would fold to his bet he could beat risk-free by checking. Clearly, my opponent wasn't thinking. Before you make any play, you should always ask yourself, "What am I trying to accomplish here?" In the case of betting on the river, you are either hoping for your opponent to call with a worse hand or fold a better hand. You just can't have it both ways. In the above example, my opponent's bet had no chance of accomplishing either of these goals—thus nothing could possibly be gained. Furthermore, betting out only stands to lose a bet whenever I have any kind of a decent hand, whether I raise or just call. So what should you do with medium-weak hands? Obviously if you're acting second, just check and hope your hand is good. But if you're acting first, barring a check-raise bluff, you have two options: either check-and-call, or check-and-fold. Checking and calling gives you the chance of inducing your opponent to bluff, thereby winning you more money against his worst hands. You also have the chance of losing less against superior hands when you opponent checks a winning hand behind you. This makes checking and calling a win-win situation versus betting. Checking and folding still may be the best option, but the check-and-call clearly dominates betting in this case. Perhaps my opponents are acting out of fear when they bet these hands out of position on the river. They fear that if they check, I will bet—forcing them to make a very tough decision between calling with a hand that can only beat a bluff or folding. While it’s true that playing to avoid tough decisions is often a good idea, here they are just giving their chips away, and their play is tantamount of throwing away money for fear of losing it. This brings up another important point … In theory, you should only bluff with your absolute worst hands. Interestingly, rank beginners often see betting these horrible hands as reckless or dangerous. But the fact is that your worst hands are just as valuable as bluffs as your medium-weak hands. The difference is that medium-weak hands have value as checking hands that the worst hands don't. As a general rule you should only bluff with hands that have no chance or almost no chance of winning in a showdown. How else are you going to win the pot with these hands except with a bluff? All weak hands lose if they get called, but only for your weakest hands is this risk outweighed by the possibility of getting a better hand to fold. This is why you often see experts turn over the most wretched of cards when they are caught bluffing, or even sometimes when the bluff succeeds. Just think how fun it is to show complete junk after getting someone to lay down a strong hand! This can rile opponents that don't understand the play's accuracy, and even some that do. I remember one play at the final table of the World Series of Poker's No Limit 2-7 Lowball Draw event some years ago. The player in question raised and was called before the draw from the big blind. His opponent drew one and he stood pat. After the draw, his opponent bet out, this player raised, and his opponent deliberated a long time before finally calling with an audible sigh, showing an 8 low. Our hero slid his hand toward the muck, but the railbirds were so curious to know what he held that they pleaded for him to show. He acquiesced, turning over KKKQQ—a pat full house in lowball! The railbirds were so impressed by the audacity of the bluff that they burst into spontaneous applause despite the fact that it failed. Was the audience right to be so impressed? No! It is true that he was bluffing with one of his worst hands as this article suggests to do. However, before the draw our player has many hands to choose from for his snowing (pre-draw bluffing) hands. Since he will fold many of his poor hands before the draw he should choose hands to snow with where the play is most likely to succeed. Holding three Kings and two Queens means that it is unlikely that your opponent has one of those cards, so with this type of hand you should expect the play to fail more often that when you hold just about any other hand! The classic correct hands for trying to snow are low full houses such as 22288 … but that's a lesson for another article

[Blink20 0]

Good informative post, thanks.

[SapphireTiger 0]

why wouldn't he be right?

[BiggestE22 0]

He is at least from what I decipher saying that betting on the river with a marginal hand is the worst play in poker. Thats why I ask. I always thought that betting in that situation with 2nd best hand gives you a chance to steal the pot. As opposed to checking or calling. I posted this cause I wanted feedback, please dont trip....

[bigedjr17 0]

He is at least from what I decipher saying that betting on the river with a marginal hand is the worst play in poker. Thats why I ask. I always thought that betting  in that situation with 2nd best hand gives you a chance to steal the pot. As opposed to checking or calling. I posted this cause I wanted feedback, please dont trip....

Why would betting with the 2nd best hand give you a chance to steal the pot? If your opponent has the nuts, you're going to get raised. If you're opponent has the 3rd or 4th best hand, you'll get called, and if you're opponent has nothing, they're going to fold. So where's the steal?

[BiggestE22 0]

Yes if your opponent has the nuts you are screwed, otherwise you have a chance to win it outright without going any further. Am I not speaking english. Seems like some of you guys just read the article and since Ferguson wrote it, independant thought went out the window. Geez....

[mx957 0]

What bigedjr17 said....sums it up fine to me. As confused as you are with the responses....that's how confused I am about the OP's question.

[BiggestE22 0]

Maybe I am missing something. OK I have my responses, thanks anyway...

[Orion071 0]

He is at least from what I decipher saying that betting on the river with a marginal hand is the worst play in poker. Thats why I ask. I always thought that betting  in that situation with 2nd best hand gives you a chance to steal the pot. As opposed to checking or calling. I posted this cause I wanted feedback, please dont trip....

Chris's point in his article is that his opponent was betting with a weak hand that could only beat another weak hand. He isn't going to steal the pot from somebody with a pair, and a player with weaker hand isn't going to call the bet anyway. If fact, the only way he could steal the pot is if a guy has a hand like AK or bottom pair and folds.Betting on the river with a weak hand is a bad play because by then the pot is usually big enough to force people to call your bet if they have anything. Therefore, any hand that can beat you will call and any hand you can beat will fold anyway, making this a bad play.

[BiggestE22 0]

OK, thanks for breaking it down for me bro, I finally get it...

[kaisersoze12 0]

I think the comments by Chris here are primarily directed to Limit Hold'em.Man I wish I could play 2-7 single draw no limit or pot limit somewhere. . . the triple draw on UB is pretty fun too.

[Pupsta 0]

I think the comments by Chris here are primarily directed to Limit Hold'em.Man I wish I could play 2-7 single draw no limit or pot limit somewhere.  . .  the triple draw on UB is pretty fun too.

if you live in/near gainesville fla, we hold single draw NL tourneys all the time.

[Guest Anonymous]

WORST PLAY IN POKER I obviously couldn't beat any of my opponent's legitimate value-betting hands. However, I decided to call as a defensive measure against being run over.

Chris contradicts himself. Not all opponents will stubbornly call in the manner described above. I guess betting on the river with the second best hand is the worst play in poker when isolated against someone who will always call a river bet as a defensive measure.

[Bonesy 0]

edit

[bigedjr17 0]

Yes if your opponent has the nuts you are screwed, otherwise you have a chance to win it outright without going any further. Am I not speaking english. Seems like some of you guys just read the article and since Ferguson wrote it, independant thought went out the window. Geez....

Yes if your opponent has the nuts you are screwed, otherwise you have a chance to win it outright without going any furtherUnless HE has changed recently there is no 'further' after the river. Or did a rule change recently happen E22?

[Nutcracker 0]

I always thought that betting in that situation with 2nd best hand gives you a chance to steal the pot. As opposed to checking or calling.

You watch WPT too much and take the word of Mike Sexton as gospel.Just because betting is the only way to win a pot, that doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. In SSHE, Sklansky states that most fish think winning pots is the most important thing, but the smart gambler knows it is money that is the most important.Ferguson is completely right in his assessment here.

[bourbenz 0]

I always thought that betting in that situation with 2nd best hand gives you a chance to steal the pot. As opposed to checking or calling.

You watch WPT too much and take the word of Mike Sexton as gospel.Just because betting is the only way to win a pot, that doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. In SSHE, Sklansky states that most fish think winning pots is the most important thing, but the smart gambler knows it is money that is the most important..

and in tournaments that means winning pots!which is what this article was about.

[NexEffect 0]

I agree but it also depends on how good your read is and how weak your opponent is. For example if I have a pair of tens on a Q J 2 flop but I'm pretty sure my opponent has me on AK and I'm pretty sure he has a smaller pair then me then I'll bet smallish decent value bet on all streets down to the river. Ofcourse you have to be playing against a really weak player, be in position, and have a good read.

[TheIceman05 0]

if I have a pair of tens on a Q J 2 flop but I'm pretty sure my opponent has me on AK and I'm pretty sure he has a smaller pair then me then

.... you in situations like this often? Where your read on a player is so good you not only know EXACTLY what he has, but EXACTLY what he thinks you have?

[Nutcracker 0]

I always thought that betting in that situation with 2nd best hand gives you a chance to steal the pot. As opposed to checking or calling.

You watch WPT too much and take the word of Mike Sexton as gospel.Just because betting is the only way to win a pot, that doesn't mean it is the right thing to do. In SSHE, Sklansky states that most fish think winning pots is the most important thing, but the smart gambler knows it is money that is the most important..

and in tournaments that means winning pots!which is what this article was about.

Cash game or tourney, the point is to make as much money as possible. This play is bigtime -EV, and being a tournament doesn't magically make a -EV play good. Keep in mind I don't play limit tournaments, but I'd imagine trying to maximize your profit with correct +EV moves is the best strategy..

[brian67 0]

If you never bet marginal hands at the river then you will get too many pots taken away from you. The second player in the pot will often bet his position at the river, and in my opinion it is better to be raising with marginal hands than calling with them. Raising gives you the chance of winning without a showdown, but calling you have to have the better hand. I don't see why you would call this the worst play in poker. You should look at it more like a bluff than anything else. The real thing is that these are the types of hands you should really be bluffing with because there is at least a chance of winning a showdown.

[dtemp 0]

If you never bet marginal hands at the river then you will get too many pots taken away from you.  The second player in the pot will often bet his position at the river, and in my opinion it is better to be raising with marginal hands than calling with them.  Raising gives you the chance of winning without a showdown, but calling you have to have the better hand.  I don't see why you would call this the worst play in poker.  You should look at it more like a bluff than anything else.  The real thing is that these are the types of hands you should really be bluffing with because there is at least a chance of winning a showdown.

I think Feguson was more referring to nl where a reraise can have you seriously doubting the strength of your hand.

[Chrisj1616 0]

Ferguson is right but he is also wrong...it depends on the situation. The AQ example is a perfect one..when you bet with AQ there thats the example of a weak marginal Hand, youre only going to get called by a hand that beats you, so you should check. If you have 63 os youre betting hoping to pick up the pot, its a bluff.....the AQ example is a big shade grey...Now if you have a Calli9ng station with say AJ and say the board is KJ46Q.Knowing that youre going to get called by TT 99 88 77 55 33 22 a pair of 6's or a pair of 4's or any combination that makes that betting a clearly marignal hand against a weak player will show a profit.It all depends on the situation at Hand.....Jesus is right, but its not a one size fits all approach, Like anything else in poker, it all depends.

[brian67 0]

Yeah my analysis really goes for specific situations. The raise at the river is smart when you either put them on a worse hand than yours, or a better hand that would be tough to call with.

[711Buddha 0]

Your premise is false. You say that there are only two reasons to bet the river.A. ValueB. BluffThis is just not true. It will always turn out one of those ways, but its always some combination of both at the time of the bet. (Exception: You have the Nuts.) Since we're talking about "Medium Weak Hands" I don't think it applies. (I'm not sure about calling the "Nut Non-Pair" a medium holdiong either, but I digress.) Anyway, to sum up... because getting into game theory is tedious at best...Not every hand worth checking down is worth calling a bet. People will occasionally fold A high to a river bet. A play doesn't have to work everytime to have +EV. Sometimes the slight bump in EV of a bluff makes betting correct where it wouldn't be otherwise.Finally, there is value in advertising, and advertising only works if you get called. If you are getting too much respect you might want to bluff where you get called for your image. (Granted this would never happen at my level, but for a pro it could matter.) "Man, you must have a hell of a read on me, you catch EVERY bluff I make..."