Blind Battle

[RiverSense 0]

Party Poker 1/2 Hold'em (4 handed) FTR converter on zerodivide.cxPreflop: Hero is SB with A , 7 . 2 folds, Hero raises, BB calls.Flop: (4 SB) K , 6 , 7 (2 players)Hero bets, BB raises, Hero calls.Turn: (4 BB) 2 (2 players)Hero checks, BB bets, Hero calls.River: (6 BB) 2 (2 players)Hero bets...Final Pot: 8 BBRiver is a bet fold. Is this any good? And if it is why? Because I pretty much decided to do it on a whim which probably isn't the best. With a safe turn and river I figured he might have a king but probably would be hard pressed to raise with it but if I checked he would bet and I would pay him off. If he has a 7 or 6 he might be confused by my bet and pay me off.Any good?

[respec 0]

I don't play much SH but your logic on the river is sound. He's sure to bet a King and you will pay him off. Here you force him to pay you off the times he has some sort of second best hand worth calling with which presumably he would have checked behind with on the river. If he isn't a maniac he won't raise any hand that you beat so betting is the correct play. This line will potentially cost you a bet against hands like pocket 8s or 9s if he would have checked the river behind with them. Also you may have induced a deperation bluff from a hand like 89 with a check. However, you'll be gaining against any pair of 7's, 6's, small pocket pairs, and even A-high if he's aggressive and stubborn enough.Any read would also help obviously. Against tighter players I can see check folding the turn and against maniacs you can play it a lot of ways that include 3 betting the flop and or checking the river planning to snap off a likely bluff with a moderate hand.

[Briguy 0]

Forget me. Thought this was full ring.

[Wingmaster05 0]

Um, somone want to explain why bet/fold is good?I cringed when i saw b/f for the river. Without reads obviously it's tough to pick and choose which is better, but the only thing raising you is a bluff or trips and better.

[Swift_Psycho 1]

the only thing raising you is a bluff or trips and better.

Isn't that an argument for the bet/fold, not an argument against it?

[screech 0]

Party Poker 1/2 Hold'em (4 handed) FTR converter on zerodivide.cxPreflop: Hero is SB with A , 7 . 2 folds, Hero raises, BB calls.Flop: (4 SB) K , 6 , 7 (2 players)Hero bets, BB raises, Hero calls.Turn: (4 BB) 2 (2 players)Hero checks, BB bets, Hero calls.River: (6 BB) 2 (2 players)Hero bets...Final Pot: 8 BBRiver is a bet fold. Is this any good? And if it is why? Because I pretty much decided to do it on a whim which probably isn't the best. With a safe turn and river I figured he might have a king but probably would be hard pressed to raise with it but if I checked he would bet and I would pay him off. If he has a 7 or 6 he might be confused by my bet and pay me off.Any good?

Nope. HU, you want to get to showdown here. So if you bet, you have to call a raise.I think a better play is to check/call. And depending on your opponent, the best turn play may be a check/raise.

[respec 0]

Nope. HU, you want to get to showdown here. So if you bet, you have to call a raise.I think a better play is to check/call. And depending on your opponent, the best turn play may be a check/raise.

I think this deserves further discussion.You say that HU with a hand like that our main concern is to get to showdown so we should check. Then you say that, depending on the opponent, we should check raise the turn? This seems inconsistent to me. Are we calling a 3-bet? If not then seeing showdown is apparently not imperative. Note that we can see a showdown for those same 2 bets we invest on the turn by CRing. If we are calling down a 3 bet then we're prepared to pay 4 bets to see showdown instead of 2 and are likely just about dead. Not a situation I'd want to be in.If we know that our opponent is at all rational, and this is a very liberal definition which probably encompasses about 95% of the online world, then he simply cannot raise that river with a hand we beat. If he pulls the bluff of his life then good for him, all good players sometimes fold the best hand. But he's not running a move there nearly often enough for us to call the raise IMO and I'm not particularly worried about him making one. If we assume that BB will always bet a pair of Kings when checked to, will call the river with any pair, will check behind with a pair of 7's or worse and will only raise us with hands beating us then bet/fold is unquestionably the best play. I think those are pretty reasonable assumtions to make even though we can obviously never be 100% certain how a player will act.I've also already covered the few situations where checking is better, such as when our oppnent holds 88/99/TT and checks behind or holds a draw such as 89 and would have fired a final bullet but folds to our lead. However, I think that on balance those very rare exceptions don't make up for all the times we let a hand we beat off the hook for a bet and we're losing another bet to a better hand than us nearly 100% of the time regardless of whether we check or bet.FWIW I don't even think we have the best hand here half of the time when we are called and its still a bet! (see pg. 211 of the "Theory of Poker" for a thorough discussion of betting on the end as an underdog) It basically boils down to the fact that your opponent will bet with less hands than he'll call with and you are forced to call the bet anyway.

[screech 0]

I think this deserves further discussion.You say that HU with a hand like that our main concern is to get to showdown so we chould check. Then you say that, depending on the opponent, we should check raise the turn? Seems very inconsistent to me. Are we calling a 3-bet? If not then seeing showdown is apparently not imperative. Note that we can see a showdown for those same 2 bets we invest on the turn by CRing. If we are calling down a 3 bet then we're prepared to pay 4 bets to see showdown instead of 2 and are likely just about dead. Not a situation I'd want to be in.Ok. I should clear this up a bit. Your main goal should be to both extract bets and get to showdown without spewing. It's a tough balancing act.Anyway, Once we get to the river, I think that the only lines we consider should be ones that get us to showdown. A check/raise/fold may be ok too, since a raise after we bet given the action so far means a lot less than a raise after we check/raise. Even though we have better odds if we chekc/raise and get 3-bet, the information we have is much greater too.Same line of reasoning goes for the turn. You check/raise certain players that bet if checked to. This makes money the times they have nothign, and extracts value when they have a weaker made hand or draw(most of the time). And if we get 3-bet on teh turn, it is player dependent, but most players aren't 3-betting the turn at this level without the goods, so we can safely fold. Of course some players just go apeshit HU, in which case it is probably best to just keep betting and let him raise. If he does, simply call.I see the incosistency in teh arguement. The point I'm trying to make is that HU situations are very player dependent. Also, most players will make plays by raising you wehn you use the raise-bet-bet-bet line, but won't even consider making a play if you check/reaise them on a big street.If we know that our opponent is at all rational, and this is a very liberal definition which probably encompasses about 95% of the online world, then he simply cannot raise that river with a hand we beat. If he pulls the bluff of his life then good for him, all good players sometimes fold the best hand. But he's not running a move there nearly often enough for us to call the raise IMO and I'm not particularly worried about him making one. I think this is completely wrong. I will often raise players on the river with a busted draw if I've seen them bet/fold. I will raise an even wider range of players on the river with any hand I plan to call with anyway after this action. That means if I have somethign like 44 here, and I plan to call the river, I'm raising against just about everyone who isn't a showdown monkey. I think your definition of rational is off. Sicne so many players bet/fold way too much, raising the river is actually quite a rational play.I know what you're going to say, most people I play against don't do this. But how do you know? You are bet/folding so much, you never can tell. I've seen even seemingly passive players take this line from time to time. It doesn't mean you should call here vs a very passive player (you shouldn't), but against most players in teh online world, you have to call this river if you get raised. Now that doesn't mean you have to call all rivers with anything marginally showdownable when you get raised - you shouldn't. Sometiems the action is such where you know your hand isn't good enough. But in HU blind battles like this, where all you've done is bet-bet-bet, you really can't fold to a raise against an unknown player.If we assume that BB will call the river with any pair, but will check behind with a pair of 7's or worse and will only raise us with hands beating us then bet/fold is unquestionably the best play. Who would question that?!I think that's a pretty reasonable assumtion to make even though we can obviously never be 100% certain how a player will act.Obviously I think the above is a terrible assumption.I've also already covered the few situations where checking is better, such as when our oppnent holds 88/99/TT and checks behind or holds a draw such as 89 and would have fired a final bullet but folds to our lead. However, I think that on balance those very rare exceptions don't make up for all the times we let a hand we beat off the hook for a bet and we're losing another bet to a better hand than us nearly 100% of the time whether we check or bet anyway.I think you also underestimate the times your opponent has complete air here. Obvoiusly checking is better then. Also, a lot of players won't always check behind weaker made hands, they will bet for value sometimes too.FWIW I don't even think we have the best hand here half of the time when we are called and its still a bet! (see pg. 211 of the "Theory of Poker" for a thorough discussion of betting on the end as an underdog) It basically boils down to the fact that your opponent will bet with less hands than he'll call with and you are forced to call the bet anyway.I understand fully the concept of betting OOP, when you're an underdog. But in this instance, I think you are completely wrong if you think that we are an underdog on this river.BTW, I think my earlier assessment of check/call was off teh mark. I still think it is better then bet/fold, but I think bet/call is the best option. Without a read on how aggressive your opponetn is, it is very hard, if not impossible to determine whether checkingn or betting is best (it depends on how many hands he'll bet if you check). In either case, I thinkn folding this river no matter what line you take vs an unknown is a mistake.Also, I think that your advice is 100% correct if you are up against an utter calling station. Obviously, checking here against a calling station is a very bad play. Betting is the only option. And folding to a raise is smart as well. Unfortunatley, we don't know we are up agianst a calling station. WE could be playing against a weird aggressive player.

[Zach6668 513]

Screech, keep making incredible posts.Respec, you too! Post more!

[RiverSense 0]

Very interesting responses from everyone. As Screech said this decision is pretty player dependent so there are probably plenty of ways to approach the hand. I'm not really sure which is best actually but it's interesting to get the different viewpoints.I'll post the results in white in case anyone wants to respond without seeing them.Villian had A6

[respec 0]

Screech, Thanks for the detailed reply. I think what we seem to disagree on here is how a "typical" player will act as opposed to how to play against any different or specific player types. My version of a generic player plays more or less as I layed out in my assumptions whereas you think that those assumptions are dangerous to make against unknowns who are probably a lot more prone to make moves on me then I'm giving them credit for. As I said in my initial reply I do not play SH, I play exclusively full ring so perhaps I am underestimating the aggression of a typical SH player since I have virtually no experience with them. However, this hand also took place at Party 1/2 and in my experience at that level no one is making sophisticated bluffs on the river there. They either have a monster or are maniac fish if they're raising that river at 1/2 and if they're the latter then you should have noticed it if you've been at the table for any amount of time. My basic point was that there are a lot of players against whom this river is a bet/fold, especially at 1/2, and that RiverSense's logic as he presented it was/is sound. I still stand by that.A couple of things:

I will raise an even wider range of players on the river with any hand I plan to call with anyway after this action. That means if I have somethign like 44 here, and I plan to call the river, I'm raising against just about everyone who isn't a showdown monkey. I think your definition of rational is off. Since so many players bet/fold way too much, raising the river is actually quite a rational play.

At Party 1/2 I really think raising that river with a hand like 44 is a big time losing play. Do so many players really bet/ fold the river too much? I see it next to never, maybe we are playing very different games. I actually think a guy who is capable of bet/folding on the end is probably a pretty good player but the point is moot as far as I'm concerned because I flat out NEVER see anyone doing it. I also think 44 is an odd hand to use as an example since your raise is a bluff, so you may as well have T3o if you think raising is profitable there. I don't understand why you would raise any hand you plan on calling there. Raising with a K and a bad kicker or pocket 8s for instance seems pointless.

I know what you're going to say, most people I play against don't do this. But how do you know? You are bet/folding so much, you never can tell.

Yeah, I guess I am saying that, but your implication about my play is off base. In fact, when I read this line I actually chuckled. I probably bet/fold the river less than once per 5000 hands. I doubt I would even do it in this hand, but that doesn't mean its not correct. Contrary to popular belief I don't always make the absolutely optimal play . Frankly I don't think I'm good enough to bet/fold the river with any frequency. Believe me, anyone raising the river light on me after I donk is going to lose a LOT of money. You can take that to the bank. I bet/call the river all the time, usually after I curse aloud, and I get shown a strong hand just about everytime. Not to mention I just about always have the goods when I bet (since I play low limits), so many times I'll end up making it 3 bets with the near nuts. Also, some rivers are more "bluff-raisable" than others and this one seems like a particularly bad candidate IMO.

Also, I think that your advice is 100% correct if you are up against an utter calling station.

Minor nitpick: Against a calling station I'd actually check/fold the turn. The type of player I'm looking for here is a guy who is neither aggressive nor passive, he's a middle of the road guy who lacks imagination and may even be a decent player. Hes definitely not a maniac but he likes to take shots in HU pots, especially on the flop. He's capable of betting his moderate hands for value in position but he'd never raise them on the big streets. IMO there are a lot of players like this online, they're the majority.That's it, I intended for this to be a quick reply. I think we just have different ideas about what constitutes a "normal" online player (you think they're a hell of a lot crazier than I do) and we'll have to agree to disagree.

[RiverSense 0]

Yeah, I guess I am saying that, but your implication about my play is off base. In fact, when I read this line I actually chuckled. I probably bet/fold the river less than once per 5000 hands.

I rarely bet fold myself but I've been thinking about when to work it in and this spot seemed like a reasonable spot so I gave it a shot.

[Actuary 3]

you can raise marginal hands on the rvier that you are callnig with anyway because then you are only risking 1 to win Pot. A pure bluff is risking 2...it has to work a lot more. I would say you do it on your weaker of calling handsthat's how I understand it.

[screech 0]

Hey respec,you're probably right that I am off on what constitutes a normal player at 1/2. For this reason, everyone should probably take your advice, but keep what I said in mind if you are up against someone who you suspect may be tricky.Regarding the river raise with weak marginal hands. Like Actuary mentioned, you are getting a pretty big discount on your raise, since you plan to call anyway. One bet goes in as a bluff catcher, the other goes in as a bluff.Against good players capable of bet/folding, this play works well. Just be careful and make sure that when you pull this, you are against a player that can fold. Also, if you get caught by a certain player, hold back on these bluff raises, and instead, just river raise him with good hands for value. He'll call you a lot more, so you can value raise a wider range of hands.