Hand Analysis - Opinions?

Flint Bones

#Game No : 3082511471
***** Hand History for Game 3082511471 *****
$2/$4 Texas Hold'em - Wednesday, November 23, 13:34:29 EDT 2005
Table Table 65438 (Real Money)
Seat 5 is the button
Total number of players : 9
Seat 1: EVANCAM ( $113 )
Seat 2: Arthur2k ( $138 )
Seat 4: nikostarz ( $110.24 )
Seat 5: FlintBones ( $40 )
Seat 6: Thereyouare1 ( $163.49 )
Seat 8: antvilla ( $68.50 )
Seat 9: frogbrt ( $78 )
Seat 10: Jumble2 ( $87.50 )
Seat 3: DYAT821 ( $87 )
Thereyouare1 posts small blind [$1].
antvilla posts big blind [$2].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to FlintBones [ Kh Kd ]
frogbrt folds.
Jumble2 folds.
EVANCAM folds.
Arthur2k calls [$2].
DYAT821 folds.
nikostarz calls [$2].
FlintBones raises [$4].
Thereyouare1 folds.
antvilla folds.
Arthur2k calls [$2].
nikostarz calls [$2].
** Dealing Flop ** [ Th, 4c, Js ]
Arthur2k checks.
nikostarz checks.
FlintBones bets [$2].
Arthur2k folds.
nikostarz calls [$2].
** Dealing Turn ** [ Qh ]
nikostarz checks.
FlintBones bets [$4].
nikostarz calls [$4].
** Dealing River ** [ 4s ]
nikostarz bets [$4].
FlintBones calls ?

I am confused by his river bet after calling the whole way. I think this is a no brainer, but I am just curious for opinions.

Zithal

In my limited LLHE experience a bet from someone who suddently wakes up is usually legit. Hard to put him on anything really strong as you'd expect a raise on the turn.

When the wake up in on the river (with no CR on the turn), I see it often mean, "I don't want to check-riase to scare you off on the turn, so I'll flat call and lead out on the river to get the extra bet or on the off chance that you'll raise me back, so I can get 3 on the river".

I have to imagine your beat here by AK, K9, 89, A4, TT, JJ or QQ. The only other hands that I could see him play this way are AQ (if he put you on something like AJ, AT) or possibly a busted draw, as the lead out bet on the river would be his only chance to win the pot.

I'd say you're beat, but you have to call. I don't see a value raise here.

SirWatts

I guess just calling is fine, make a note and next time you can pop him if he does this with marginal stuff but isn't good enough to fold to a raise.

g2

My guess is he has AQ, and hit his queen on the turn, but flat called b/c he has you on a J or a 10, and doesn't want to reveal that you are "beat", hence he bets on the river.  This is the first scenario that came to mind.  Zithal's right though, very often in low limit games players will just flat call (until the river) when they are confident they have the best hand.  I've heard many times, "why bet when you're doing it for me".  Personally, I try to never play like this, often it's just asking your opponent to catch his draw. SirWatts makes a good point though, whatever the outcome, you just gained a ton of info about how this player plays.

/g2

ScottyZ

I would raise, but I think it's a close decision.

The other play worth considering is calling. Folding on the river is out of the question.

The opponent betting out in first position after playing the rest of the hand passively typically indicates that his hand has actually improved, he has slowplayed what he thinks is a flopped big hand and is now afraid of it going check-check, or he feels he has a busted draw with no chance of winning a showdown.

If you raise for value, you will likely get (at least) called by any pair or better, but not by the busted draw hands.

How about the downside to raising? In other words, what hands can your opponent have here that have you beat? Note that he is pretty likely to re-raise with hands better than Kings-up.

From an unknown player, all of TT, JJ, and QQ and AK seem pretty unlikely (but certainly not out of this worls) with no pre-flop raise. It seems odd to not go ahead and check-raise the turn with 98 or K9, but that kind of overly fancy play wouldn't surprise me too much.

I would say that your opponent most likely has something like QJ or QT, or a hand with a 4 in it (most likely A4s or maybe 54s).

The fact that typical LL opponent is also capable of betting out on the river with (and calling a raise with) a wide variety of bizzare hands, like any Q, any J, 66, etc. gives a value raise a little more power (in general) than it might appear to have. Do not assume that an unknown LL opponent plays poker well.

A tricky decision; however, I think that not folding is very clear.

BTW, it seems probable that your opponent has the 4 (even without retreiving the hand history and passing it off as a stone cold read), simply due to the fact that you found the hand memorable/interesting enough to post in the first place. So, my results-based analysis is that it's a clear fold.

Update: Easy call here. I'm putting the opponent on A-high.

ScottyZ

zero

You have to call. This happens to me so often when I play low limit and everytime I'm thinking that I'm beat but I know I have to call for one bet. The good thing is, I've found that when people do this I still have the best hand 50% of the time. Alot of people I've played with will also bet out on the river if a third flush comes or a straight becomes possible. Sometimes they have it, but most of the time its a desperate bluff.

Flint Bones

Thanks for the opinions. I honestly felt that I was beat. However, I wasn't about to fold because I wasn't 100% and it would be foolish to fold to one bet. Maybe that's my leak.

I called.

He turns over A 5.

I take the pot.

As with what Sir Watts said, I took note of this. A few hands later the same sort of thing occurred and I re-raised and nailed him.

Chugs

ScottyZ wrote:

BTW, it seems probable that your opponent has the 4 (even without retreiving the hand history and passing it off as a stone cold read), simply due to the fact that you found the hand memorable/interesting enough to post in the first place. So, my results-based analysis is that it's a clear fold. Smiley
ScottyZ

you figured that one also ... ahhh

ScottyZ

He turns over A 5.

Whoops. I should have grabbed the HH after all.

I need to update my results-based analysis: Easy call in an attempt to pick off the probable bluff.

However, I wasn't about to fold because I wasn't 100% and it would be foolish to fold to one bet. Maybe that's my leak.

I wouldn't call it a leak. I would say that "it would be foolish to fold to one bet" here.

Of course, always calling on the river would be a leak. However, often calling (or raising) on the river with decent hands (including this one) is no leak at all.

ScottyZ

Flint Bones

Okay. I was just curious. I was doubting my play on this hand. It turned out correct but recently (hence this post) I have called on the river to be surpised by the K9 in this type of situation.

He was an odd player. I couldn't put him on hands until after this one played out.

ScoobyD

You say you popped him next time with a raise? A raise here has no value vs. a complete bluff though (unless the guy's bad enough to call the river raise with A high). That being said I'm utterly shocked by the abundance of people that would assume they're beat here and have to make a "crying call". This bet doesn't strike me the way most LL players would play a 4 (they'd check raise). And most hands that were already ahead (2 pair, straights) would have raised the turn for value. Not to mention, some of the hands that had you beat on the turn (QJ, JT, QT) just got counterfeited on the river. The donk bet into you in this case more often screams weakness to me than strength, but of course the downside to raising is that you could be reraised and I'm not prepared to fold there. So raising may get you one more bet, or might cost you 2. That being said, vs. a donkey (which this guy quite clearly is), I'd be inclined to think raising for value is +EV here.

Flint Bones

The next time I did re-raise and he folded. I didn't need to show down. In this particular case I wasn't prepared to lose two bets. I honestly wasn't sure what his river bet meant. That's why I posted the hand. I have seen bad plays but to bluff into someone who has been raising every step of the way with nothing was odd to me. It isn't NL. A river bluff is out of place.

BBC Z

River: You can

1) Win 2 bets when you are ahead but lose 3 when you are behind.
2) Win 1 bet when you are ahead and lose 1 when you are behind.
3) Lose the pot by folding for 1 bet (NOT ON MY SHIFT YOU AIN'T!)

I dont know the real numbers, but if leading out the river requires a 66% chance of being ahead, then raising the river (for value) requires an even better hand (75%ish?).. Can you be that confident? Theres no read on the villian, so you have to give him credit for something.. But what? It really does depend on the player. Did you pacify him? Is he stupid? Smart? Those things make all the differences..

These donk bets on the river always confuse me, because they tend to not make a lot of sense in the way the hand played down.

The only other hands that I could see him play this way are AQ

Most players will raise AQ in MP.. The villain limped so I wouldnt be so quick to give him that hand..

However, I wasn't about to fold because I wasn't 100% and it would be foolish to fold to one bet. Maybe that's my leak.

Calling that river isn't a leak.

This bet doesn't strike me the way most LL players would play a 4 (they'd check raise)

Your straighforward tighty bets his hands straight out all the time
Your tricky loosey check raises the river

That being said, vs. a donkey (which this guy quite clearly is), I'd be inclined to think raising for value is +EV here.

The beauty of hindsight, it's 20/20. When the hand is played, Hero has no idea what Villans box is you can't assume he's a donkey.

ScoobyD

The beauty of hindsight, it's 20/20. When the hand is played, Hero has no idea what Villans box is you can't assume he's a donkey.

OK in hindsight my OP might have been somewhat skewed by results...fair enough. I think in general though that that bet looks weak, but you're probably right in that a value raise is a VERY thin play. Folding is out of the question.

Quote
This bet doesn't strike me the way most LL players would play a 4 (they'd check raise)


Your straighforward tighty bets his hands straight out all the time
Your tricky loosey check raises the river

I'd agree that the donk-bet from a very straightforward player could be a 4. But against a straightforward tighty, I think it's reasonably safe to assume that:

a) he shouldn't have a 4
b) if he was ahead with a straight, he'd have raised the turn.

I agree a tricky loose will CR river, but...

A tricky loosy will also donk-bet the river too with crap. The question is, will he donk bet with 2nd pair (and call a raise) or is he donk betting a small pair, or even A high (in which case he might not call the raise).

In general, I'd be much more inclined to flat call vs. a passive player (since I would think the chance of a 4 is greater). Even LP players will make strange bluff attempts on generally non-scary cards on occaision. Vs. a known bluffer and aggressive player though I would be more inclined to raise, since these types would frequently be the types to CR the river with a hand that beats us, but might call the raise with a T, J or Q here.

Actually, thinking more about the hand, if the river was a 2 or 3 I'd be more inclined to flat call. In general, I'd see the 2nd 4 pairing the board as more apt to help my hand than hurt it (since it counterfeits 2 pair combinations that are highly likely).