OT: Poker Hand Discussion

[primelord]

It has been a long time since I posted a hand to discuss and I curious how many of you play this river.

Preflop: Hero is UTG+1 with K http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, K http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/images/graemlins/spade.gif.
UTG calls, Hero raises, 2 folds, MP2 calls, 2 folds, Button calls, 2 folds, UTG calls.

Flop: (9.5 sb) 3 http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/images/graemlins/heart.gif, Q http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/images/graemlins/heart.gif, 7 http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/images/graemlins/diamond.gif (4 players)
UTG checks, Hero bets, MP2 folds, Button calls, UTG folds.

Turn: (5.75 BB) 9 http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/images/graemlins/heart.gif (2 players)
Hero bets, Button calls.

River: (7.75 BB) A http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/images/graemlins/heart.gif (2 players)
Hero....

What is your plan for the river here?

[Subby]

Check with the intent to call. You are likely beat, and you don't want to get raised here. If he bets you are getting 8.5 to 1 on your call (if I am figuring this correctly). I don't think you can be certain enough your are beat here to lay this one down.

[GoldenEagle]

I would check to prevent him from making it two bets. If he calls, I simply call. He was chasing all the way assuming he has the flush. If he does or has an ace, you cut your losses and realize you did the best you could to chase him out of the pot.

[primelord]

FWIW. I forgot to add my read on the opponent. He seems to play both loose-passive pre-flop and passive post-flop.

[primelord]

Just to try and spark some conversation on this. Wouldn't a bet here possible get villan to lay down an A if he doesn't have a heart?

[digamma]

Just to try and spark some conversation on this. Wouldn't a bet here possible get villan to lay down an A if he doesn't have a heart?
I don't think so. If he's calling you with Ax on the turn and a flush draw already out there, I think he'd at least call, having made his pair on the river.

[primelord]

So the concensus here is to check and call a bet?

[albionmoonlight]

So the concensus here is to check and call a bet?
Yes. I'd assume that I was beat, but, as noted above, you are getting good enough odds to justify a call.

[Simms]

If you're going to call a bet anyway, why not bet out and fold to a raise? It costs you the same, and regardless of how slim it is, there *is* still a chance you could get him to fold.

I'm betting this any day of the week and twice on Sunday....*if* I have the discipline to fold to a raise.

[Malificent]

You apply Clarkmeister's Theorem here.

Clarkmeister's Theorem says that when you are heads up and out of position with a four flush on board, you bet.

The only time you will get raised is when they have the nuts, because people are too afraid of the nuts otherwise. You can then safely fold. This prevents it being checked through if you have the best hand and doesn't cost you anymore than a check/call. It also has some small amount of fold equity if they have an A but don't have a heart.

[primelord]

If you're going to call a bet anyway, why not bet out and fold to a raise? It costs you the same, and regardless of how slim it is, there *is* still a chance you could get him to fold.

I'm betting this any day of the week and twice on Sunday....*if* I have the discipline to fold to a raise.
Well the advatage to checking here is that if he does bet and you call you at least get to see a show down for the same price as if you fold to a raise. Your opponent is also more likely to bluff the 4 flush if you check to him and/or bet a Q now that you have shown weakness. However with an A and 4 flush on the board if he was calling down with his pair of Qs he may fold to your river bet. So you gain a bet when he is behind, but has a hand or wants to his only shot at winning the hand by representing the flush.

He is also likely to fold almost any hand you beat so betting out is not likely to gain you a bet and very well mgith force you to fold without even getting to see a showdown.

[primelord]

You apply Clarkmeister's Theorem here.

Clarkmeister's Theorem says that when you are heads up and out of position with a four flush on board, you bet.

The only time you will get raised is when they have the nuts, because people are too afraid of the nuts otherwise. You can then safely fold. This prevents it being checked through if you have the best hand and doesn't cost you anymore than a check/call. It also has some small amount of fold equity if they have an A but don't have a heart.
This isn;t exactly Clark's Theorem. Clark's Theorem was when you are out of position and have been check calling and then the 4 flush hits on the river. Since I raise preflop and have been betting out it certainly doesn't look like I have been drawing to the flush. It;s much scarier when the out of position player suddenly comes alive when the four flush hits than when he has been leading out the whole way.

[primelord]

Hmm... doing a bit more reading maybe Clark's Theorem isn;t just when you have been calling along although that is the example he used.

[GreenMonster]

Hi guys new poster here. Love the forum and if there is one thing I can contribute its poker help. I have played the last 6 months as a job and can help a few players here. In this hand if the game was low limit I would most likely check call because if the guy has called you the whole way down he will to the river and not fold so you may save yourself a bet. In a higher limit game (5/10) or higher you would continue to bet hoping for a laydown or a crying call with KQ offsuit. Either play here is correct depending on the situwation the only real bad play would be to fold to any bet on the river yourself. GreenMonster

[primelord]

Hi guys new poster here. Love the forum and if there is one thing I can contribute its poker help. I have played the last 6 months as a job and can help a few players here. In this hand if the game was low limit I would most likely check call because if the guy has called you the whole way down he will to the river and not fold so you may save yourself a bet. In a higher limit game (5/10) or higher you would continue to bet hoping for a laydown or a crying call with KQ offsuit. Either play here is correct depending on the situwation the only real bad play would be to fold to any bet on the river yourself. GreenMonster
So you think if you lead the river and he raises it is a mistake to fold?

[QuikSand]

I read slick's comment as saying "check-and-fold" is the only mistake here.

I think you can defend betting out. I'd check and call.

[Lathum]

I think an important question and maybe I missed it somewhere, is the game limit or no limit?

I think it makes a huge difference.

If it is a limit game I bet and if my opponent re-raises I can still justify calling one more bet because of the odds, even if I know I'm beat folding to a reraise would be the wrong play and even if you are beat at least you gain information on your opponent

If it is a no-limit game I check, if my opponent bets strong I assume I am beat and muck the hand, if he bets weak, less then half the pot, I call because of the odds and for the information. I would never bet in this spot in a no limit game because the risk vs. reward is to high, if you bet out you risk your opponet coming strong back over the top and putting you to a test for all of your chips.

[primelord]

I think an important question and maybe I missed it somewhere, is the game limit or no limit?
It was limit.

[primelord]

Well this whole thread is pretty interesting to me. The general concensus seems to be check and call a bet. I also posted this on 2+2 and the general consensus is to lead out on the river.

FWIW. I did bet and villan called.

Button showed Qhttp://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/images/graemlins/club.gif, 8http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/images/graemlins/club.gif and MHIG.

[GreenMonster]

Primelord, what limit is this that would make a big difference in the way I might play the hand. GreenMonster

[QuikSand]

I think the setup makes it very clear that this is a limit game. You wouldn't just have items like "bets" and "raises" if it were no-limit.

He seems to play both loose-passive pre-flop and passive post-flop.

If you have a reasonable player read, I don't think the limit matters.

[primelord]

If you have a reasonable player read, I don't think the limit matters.
What Quik said. It was only a .5/1 game, but no matter what the limit was a loose-passive player is exactly that.

[GreenMonster]

You are right that the limit should not matter that much but in a higher limit game if you check I the other player will bet no matter what pretty much. They look for value. Since he had not raised the pot yet, betting was the correct play, because the other player won't raise with anything but the nutz and you may even get a real tight guy to fold a hand like Q8 offsuit. (In your case ty fish for playing a bad hand with a weak kicker on a bad flop).

[dixieflatline]

Button calls
So I think the real question here is how quickly did you add him to your buddies list?

Seriously, even though you were betting all the way I think bet/fold to a 3-bet is higher EV compared with check/call especially with the loose passive read. It may not get as many folds from a hand with an ace but it still looks like the best line to me.

[primelord]

So I think the real question here is how quickly did you add him to your buddies list?
There was little reason to add him to the buddy list. .5/1 is full of guys exactly like him. :)