KK with lots of interest, bet this river?

[mewsiclovr]

I'm learning but still have a ways to go.

BB seems tightish, SB is a loose fish.

PokerStars 1/2 Hold'em (6 handed) TightPoker converter

Preflop: Hero is Button with , .
2 folds, CO calls, Hero raises, SB calls, BB calls, CO calls.

Flop: (8 SB) , , (4 players)
SB bets, BB raises, CO folds, Hero 3-bets, SB calls, BB calls.

Turn: (7.50 BB) (3 players)
SB checks, BB checks, Hero bets, SB calls, BB calls.

River: (10.50 BB) (3 players)
SB checks, BB checks, Hero checks or bets?

[sfustsh]

I'd bet. The only thing I'm afraid of is 78 but I suspect you'd have been led into on the river if it was out there.

[caffiend]

I suspect you suspect wrongly. SB will lead with a straight, but BB is virtually always going to check-raise here because SB is fishy and will be trapped in the middle. It has much more upside than usual. However, I doubt you're finding 78 there this time.

The truth is, it doesn't really matter if you bet or check behind in most of these situations. you'll often find neither of them can call, so your expectation is less than a full bet. That's cancelled out by the extremely profitable opportunity you present them by betting. You can't even go with the idea that you lead into bad players (who will miss much of the profit you present) because they're most likely to bushwhack you with garbage.

Instead you should act at random, or close to it, unless your image requires a specific action.

[mewsiclovr]

Also, with regards to the flop action - is it better to 3-bet, or to call and raise the turn?

[sfustsh]

Hey caffiend, if you're villain, and you've got a pair of tens, or a pair nines even, what's your line on the river?

Check/call.

Not betting here is losing a lot of value.

I don't mind 3betting the flop, it's hard to be sure BB is going to follow up with a turn bet as well, and you might just end up squeezing SB out; so it's probably about neutral.

[snickers99]

I'd probably bet the river.

[mewsiclovr]

I'd probably bet the river.

Oh man now I know checking is a mistake. j/k snickers

[LadyWrestler]

I vote: Bet at the river.

[LadyWrestler]

Also...I am glad to see a limit cash room rolling again! I still like to play a limit hold'em cash game now and again.

[caffiend]

Also, with regards to the flop action - is it better to 3-bet, or to call and raise the turn?

Probably much better to raise the flop with that board and find out where you're at. 9T presents a lot of big draws (straight+overs/top pair+over) with hands people would defend with. That really cuts down on the amount of blanks you can expect. On top of that, 9T and 99 are both reasonable holdings which are dangerous for you.

If you can get SB out, great. But more important than that is finding out if BB is strong on the flop, or just trying to muscle his draw because you're on an obvious steal.

[snickers99]

I'd probably bet the river.

Oh man now I know checking is a mistake. j/k snickers

I lol'd! But I suck at limit, so maybe you should do the opposite of what I say.

[caffiend]

Hey caffiend, if you're villain, and you've got a pair of tens, or a pair nines even, what's your line on the river?

Check/call.

Not betting here is losing a lot of value.

Your bet will lay him 11.5:2 to raise, let's call it 6:1 to stay simple. If you intend to fold to a raise more than 1 in 7 times then you shouldn't bet. In my experience, most 2+2 types are willing to make "great laydowns" way too often in limit games. Even if you didn't know when he was ahead of you, but folded with optimal frequency he stands to win 1 out of 7 pots in the long run. That gives him an expectation around 1.6 bets per pot, which is pretty damn close to even money on the 2 he's risking.

Now, if he'll ever raise and you play optimally he's losing 0.4 bets (less than a small bet!). But what's your expectation? He will call with tens, he won't call with a missed draw. He may or may not call with nines. Obviously then, if he has a draw your expectation is 0. If he has tens it's 1. So if both are equally likely, 0.5. We'll give you that then, even though it's a bit high against a solid player.

So assuming you play perfectly and he doesn't, his expectation when raising is 1.6 and yours from betting is 0.5. That's a hell of a stick to be handing someone to beat on you with.

If you don't play perfectly, it's a disaster. His expecation skyrockets from the extra bets he'll call when he beats up on you with a check-raise and wins, and the gigantic pots he drags if you fold too often. Of course these Skalansky Dollars don't all go to one guy, they end up spread across the games you play.

What's important isn't that bluffing with a raise on the end is stupid, it's that you're providing people who are worse than you with a high expectation play for free! The fact that it's stupid only makes it more dangerous, because you'll encounter it more often from stupid people.

I'll even make up the 0.5 bets lost for you.

1. Because I'll check or bet randomly I'll win some surprising hands in showdowns when I check behind.

2. Because I don't always bet, I not only avoid the check-raise bluff entirely, I avoid the check-raise for value pretty often too.

3. Because I avoid the check-raise so much, I see more out of line bets when scare cards come. What's less obvious is that a given percentage of them are bluffs, encouraged by the fact that I'm "weak on the river." You don't really need to play perfectly here though, at 10:1 or better you can virtually call with impunity. If you're even moderately successful at hand reading, you'll clean up in bets saved/earned.

4. Because I'll bet at random I'll tend to show down a confusing array of winners and losers. People call more often when they're confused, so I can get paid off with some surprising hands.

5. Because I show down more strong hands than weak ones (because I play more strong hands than weak ones) people will give my later round bets entirely too much respect. I mean, if I'll check an overpair, I must need a monster to bet, right? That nets me a surprising number of pots when I stab at them on the end.

Still, I'd agree this is a fairly safe betting situation. I'd bet in this hand close to 100% of the time in a vacum.

[mewsiclovr]

well said caffeind. Just so you know that if I bet and am raised, I am calling 100% here. The pot would be far too large to fold, esp if SB tags along, so while I expect to lose a lot of the time I think I can see a really retarded bluff or weird value(?) bet from like JJ or something enough to come out ahead.

[mirage]

I bet too.

[caffiend]

well said caffeind. Just so you know that if I bet and am raised, I am calling 100% here. The pot would be far too large to fold, esp if SB tags along, so while I expect to lose a lot of the time I think I can see a really retarded bluff or weird value(?) bet from like JJ or something enough to come out ahead.

Just remember, that if your opponent plays perfectly then betting nets you +0 (because he'll always fold when beat) and checking nets him +2 (because you'll always pay off his raise). The way to put a spanner in the works is to do both, if you'll check half the time then a perfect opponent is only +1 with the best hand. Presto! Same as if he bet and you called.

Of course, nobody's perfect and you often have the best hand. Still, don't make the mistake of assuming a bet has a lot more value than checking here. It's pretty close, and comes down to reads and image.