value bet or check/call?

[The Bwaves 0]

c/c bad.rocket,him being passive is precisely why bet/fold is correct on the river. Every better hand will bet this; so we are losing one bet when we are behind, whether we bet or c/c. However, he won't always bet all the hands we beat. He's passive-ish. If this player raisese the river, 99.6% of the time we are beat. Easy fold.Not betting here will cost you lots over the long run against passive straight forward players.Also, mind you, he is not so passive that he would not often raise a better Q on the flop. He may have K, and if he does, we are losing one bet, whether we c/c or bet. Bet/Fold is the best. AINEC.trust me.

Agreed

[Canada 0]

Bet.I always hate narrowing down to 1 hand , but you'll see JT a lot here

As the hand played, bet/fold would have been the better option as villain checked behind and showed JTo for third pair and a busted OESD.

:dance: I rock! (sw)

[Rocketwadster 0]

c/c bad.rocket,him being passive is precisely why bet/fold is correct on the river. Every better hand will bet this; so we are losing one bet when we are behind, whether we bet or c/c. However, he won't always bet all the hands we beat. He's passive-ish. If this player raisese the river, 99.6% of the time we are beat. Easy fold.Not betting here will cost you lots over the long run against passive straight forward players.Also, mind you, he is not so passive that he would not often raise a better Q on the flop. He may have K, and if he does, we are losing one bet, whether we c/c or bet. Bet/Fold is the best. AINEC.trust me.

The biggest problem though is that we are basing our play on him being a passive player, but how many hands is that based on? Is that after 100 hands, or even 500? For the most part, we are using incomplete information (on our opponent) to justify our actions, which doesn't always work out the way we had hoped. I think for most showdowns like this one, check/call works nicely. To each his own though. 8)

[Canada 0]

The biggest problem though is that we are basing our play on him being a passive player, but how many hands is that based on? Is that after 100 hands, or even 500? For the most part, we are using incomplete information (on our opponent) to justify our actions, which doesn't always work out the way we had hoped. I think for most showdowns like this one, check/call works nicely. To each his own though. 8)

It's not that big a problem. The VPIP/PFR/pfa figures gravitate quite quickly to their end point. 50 hands and they are more than accurate enough.The whole thing here is it looks like the villain is a decent player, albeit on the passive side.What hand does he play this way that beats us?

• Kings raise the turn2pair/sets all get a raise in before the riverBetter queens - nope AQ and KQ raise preflop/flop/turn
  • He's calling with a weaker hand which leaves
    • Q9 or worse Queen- unlikely given his VPIPA3h which probably folds the riverJT which calls flop, turn and probably crying calls the riverA pocket pair of which 22 is the only threat and would have folded by now
      • The range for the villain here is so narrow that it makes this an extremely easy value bet and also a textbook hand for reading your opponent.

[Canada 0]

Passive players will just check behind you if they missed their hand. By betting you may eliminate a showdown and if he does call it you were beaten the whole way through anyway.check calling isn't a bad play either, but if you check, and he bets, you've lost all agression in the hand and he may get you to lay down the best of it.IMHO both are good plays.

This is wrong in so many ways.You do realise it was a limit hand?

[Rocketwadster 0]

It's not that big a problem. The VPIP/PFR/pfa figures gravitate quite quickly to their end point. 50 hands and they are more than accurate enough.

I couldn't disagree more with this part of your post.I know that I have had numerous 1 or 2 hour sessions where I sat down and wasn't dealt any cards, so I played 2 out of the 79 or so hands, but that doesn't make me a rock. Similarily, there are times where you sit down, and are getting monster hands after monster hands, raising pre-flop like there is no tomorrow for most of them, but that doesn't make me a loosey-goosey. 50 hands is not enough to get a read on someone's playstyle. 500 would be pushing it IMO. 8)

[Canada 0]

It's not that big a problem. The VPIP/PFR/pfa figures gravitate quite quickly to their end point. 50 hands and they are more than accurate enough.

I couldn't disagree more with this part of your post.I know that I have had numerous 1 or 2 hour sessions where I sat down and wasn't dealt any cards, so I played 2 out of the 79 or so hands, but that doesn't make me a rock. Similarily, there are times where you sit down, and are getting monster hands after monster hands, raising pre-flop like there is no tomorrow for most of them, but that doesn't make me a loosey-goosey. 50 hands is not enough to get a read on someone's playstyle. 500 would be pushing it IMO. 8)

Yes there are going to be anomolies but they occur in the lowest % of cases.How many 2/79 sessions do you have in a 10,000 hand sample set?There is a very low SD with figures like VPIP so after 50 hands your confidence factors for these are going to be in excess of 90%. More than enough to make a read.We are talking about generalisations here.Lets look at it another way. 50 hands are close to 2 hours live play. You think you can't get a read on a players style in 2 hours?My PT stats show up after 10 hands and i don't see massive devations from 50 hands onwards. A 19VPIP after that time is not going to turn into 8% rock or 40% loosy all that often.I do however weigh my reads based on # of hands 10 - I ignore all but the most extreme50 - I assume it to be 90% accurate100 - FWIW it's set in stone - it will be grossly wrong so rarely that to ignore it would be giving up HUGE EV on the number of times its accurateAlso trusting the figures will show up the anomolies easier as they will stand out like the Mutts NutsI really suggest you try 1 of 2 exercises1) Do some SD calcs using your PT database and see just how quickly you can reach a high level of confidenceor a lot easier2) Open a Party ring table using PT on observed hands and watch just how quickly the figures convergeYou really need to get a feel for these things as there are no absolutes and you can only work with the limited information at your disposal

[Rocketwadster 0]

I agree with the above in general, but I do not put any stock in my PT/Pokerace/Gametime + numbers in how I play on the river in situations like this without at least 100 hands, if not more. That's just me though. 8)

[Actuary 3]

Rocket;it's a value bet against all opponents Rocket.I really can't think of one that it's not.Maybe one that has a 100% win at SD % and is really passive, never raises.lack of hands on him is not important.keep missing these bets, I don't care.

[Rocketwadster 0]

Against all opponents? Wow. But are you advocating bet/fold, or bet/call, or bet raise? Bet/fold against all oppponents doesn't seem right... :?

[Actuary 3]

Against all opponents? Wow. But are you advocating bet/fold, or bet/call, or bet raise? Bet/fold against all oppponents doesn't seem right... :?

true.I would not bet/fold against a real lag. I'd c/c. Being cautious I might c/c against a tricky/bluff type player who could wait till the river to raise a good hand.But with NO READ it's an easy bet.Given the pot size it's an easy B/F with NO READ.Our read, limited perhaps, makes it lean more towards a B/F than it is already with no read.

[Rocketwadster 0]

Against all opponents? Wow. But are you advocating bet/fold, or bet/call, or bet raise? Bet/fold against all oppponents doesn't seem right... :?

true.I would not bet/fold against a real lag. I'd c/c. Being cautious I might c/c against a tricky/bluff type player who could wait till the river to raise a good hand.But with NO READ it's an easy bet.Given the pot size it's an easy B/F with NO READ.Our read, limited perhaps, makes it lean more towards a B/F than it is already with no read.

Now THAT is what I was looking for. I wasn't trying to be difficult with anyone on this, I was trying to figure out (it is pretty early in the morning still here - only one coffee in me so far) how best to play it, and it seemed like check/call had us covered, but it looks like I was being too passive.

[Shimmering Wang 1]

Well said, Actuary."You're growds up and you're growds up and you're growds up."Checking this river is pretty weak, even against an aggressive opponent. Most aggressive players would have raised the turn if they'd spiked a hand, and the deuce on the river helps nobody. This river is almost always a bet. Against a passive player, a bet/fold line is going to be a little better, and against an aggressive player you can call a raise.Wang

[rog 0]

I still think C/C. You've convinced me that you dont lose much using B/F when you're behind as poopsed to C/C. That's fine. You have to actually gain when you're ahead though. What worse hands are we likely to see call here? Not many. I dont think you're missing bets here because I think it's highly unlikely a worse hand is paying you off. Getting paid off has to be about 8 times as likely as getting bluff-raised for B/F to be +EV.As for Villain being passive, those stats are only slightly passive. 5.0/2.0 is the standard definition of aggressive and villain falls only slightly short.

[The Bwaves 0]

Passive players will just check behind you if they missed their hand. By betting you may eliminate a showdown and if he does call it you were beaten the whole way through anyway.check calling isn't a bad play either, but if you check, and he bets, you've lost all agression in the hand and he may get you to lay down the best of it.IMHO both are good plays.

This is wrong in so many ways.You do realise it was a limit hand?

In other words:Bet / Fold, not Check / Call.

[Rocketwadster 0]

A HA!!!!I'm just kidding.I've let this one go. Check / call is fine for me against most of the opponents I see, bet / fold against the remainder...lol 8)

[Actuary 3]

rog,it comes down to:1. Among the set of hands we beat, he calls with more of them than he bets2. He won't ever (< 5%) raise a worse hand on the riverAre you more afraid of being bluffed out?If so, B/C.Are you thinking he's more likely to bet hands we beat than he is to call with them, if we check to him, so let him? That is why I would c/c to a more aggressive player, as well as not wanting to face a river raise.But this is an easy Bet.See 1 above.also , for a tight players, he is passive, not close.