You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.

You might need to refresh your page afterwards.

Sky Poker forums will be temporarily unavailable from 11pm Wednesday July 25th.
Sky Poker Forums is upgrading its look! Stay tuned for the big reveal!

Erm...

edited October 2013 in The Poker Clinic
This is what i want to happen on the river. Wait is it? wtf?

PlayerActionCardsAmountPotBalancejams88Small blind £0.10£0.10£19.90RyanC7Big blind £0.20£0.30£19.80 Your hole cards67   jams88Raise £0.30£0.60£19.60RyanC7Call £0.20£0.80£19.60Flop  823   RyanC7Check    jams88Bet £0.60£1.40£19.00RyanC7Call £0.60£2.00£19.00Turn  5   RyanC7Check    jams88Bet £1.50£3.50£17.50RyanC7Call £1.50£5.00£17.50River  5   RyanC7Check    jams88Bet £3.40£8.40£14.10RyanC7All-in £17.50£25.90£0.00

Comments

  • edited October 2013
    Should be an obvious fold so what's your question?

    Chasing flushes that are that low will lose you a lot of money long term.

    I hope you realise that you were actually bluffing not drawing?

    Flop bet size is ok if you are representing strength. However with the check/call I would slow down. You are obviously behind now and are very possibly drawing dead to a higher flush.

    If you did call and take pot down, I hope it was with a very good player read rather than a hunch/gamble because readless you have to assume worst hand opponent here is a much higher flush.



  • edited October 2013
    In Response to Re: Erm...:
    Should be an obvious fold so what's your question? Chasing flushes that are that low will lose you a lot of money long term. I hope you realise that you were actually bluffing not drawing? Flop bet size is ok if you are representing strength. However with the check/call I would slow down. You are obviously behind now and are very possibly drawing dead to a higher flush. If you did call and take pot down, I hope it was with a very good player read rather than a hunch/gamble because readless you have to assume worst hand opponent here is a much higher flush.
    Posted by Phantom66
    huh?

    u realise this is HU right, u wanna just open fold 76s?
  • edited October 2013

    and in reply to OP,

    any reads?
  • edited October 2013
    Tough spot this. 

    Villain doesn't appear to be scared/bothered by the flush coming in and the board pairing on the river. But there are still quite a few hands that they could ship that we beat. Or he could just be trying to rep the hand we have.

    HU, I think I call, but reads and history will dictate if this is the right option.

    Edit - Actually, thinking about it there isn't much that he jams for value that we beat. It's probably an airball or something nutted. Meh, still call (this is why I try to avoid cash!)
  • edited October 2013
    In Response to Re: Erm...:
    Should be an obvious fold so what's your question? Chasing flushes that are that low will lose you a lot of money long term. I hope you realise that you were actually bluffing not drawing? Flop bet size is ok if you are representing strength. However with the check/call I would slow down. You are obviously behind now and are very possibly drawing dead to a higher flush. If you did call and take pot down, I hope it was with a very good player read rather than a hunch/gamble because readless you have to assume worst hand opponent here is a much higher flush.
    Posted by Phantom66
    Well, he's semi-bluffing.

    Giving up the betting on the turn would be terrible, in my opinion. We've added an open-ender to our flush draw. We must continue betting the turn. Even if we do get a caller, we can put so much pressure on his one pair hands on the river and have a huge number of outs.

    On the river, we're looking at a very read dependent decision. It looks like a strong hand, but it's such a strong rep that he could easily be bluffing. If we think he's capable of checking his one-pairs for showdown value, realising that if you bet, you must have a better hand, he can rep super strength by check-raising big.

    That's levelling a bit, though. In a vacuum we make the fold and wait till we've figured the guy out a bit more. If we do eventually decide that the villain is taking tricky, deceptive lines like this, we should decide this isn't a good opponent to be playing HU cash with.

    People will say that refusing action to good players is bumhunting. They're right. Bumhunters rarely lose their money, though. :)
  • edited October 2013
    In Response to Re: Erm...:
    In Response to Re: Erm... : huh? u realise this is HU right, u wanna just open fold 76s?
    Posted by SHANXTA
    oops no sorry misread as 4 handed pre which does change things somewhat.

    However was not saying fold pre - maybe take a free card on turn - although thinking about it that does signpost the hand as a draw so scrub that.

    river bet still very much player read dependant, still cant see them shipping with hands we beat though apart from bluff.

    if villain really is that aggro would hope to have a read on that.
  • edited October 2013
    In Response to Re: Erm...:
    In Response to Re: Erm... : Well, he's semi-bluffing. Giving up the betting on the turn would be terrible, in my opinion. We've added an open-ender to our flush draw. We must continue betting the turn. Even if we do get a caller, we can put so much pressure on his one pair hands on the river and have a huge number of outs. On the river, we're looking at a very read dependent decision. It looks like a strong hand, but it's such a strong rep that he could easily be bluffing. If we think he's capable of checking his one-pairs for showdown value, realising that if you bet, you must have a better hand, he can rep super strength by check-raising big. That's levelling a bit, though. In a vacuum we make the fold and wait till we've figured the guy out a bit more. If we do eventually decide that the villain is taking tricky, deceptive lines like this, we should decide this isn't a good opponent to be playing HU cash with. People will say that refusing action to good players is bumhunting. They're right. Bumhunters rarely lose their money, though. :)
    Posted by BorinLoner
    +1 Good post - so much better than mine

    Agree on turn - still got to be a fold though.

    if villain is check/calling a pair for showdown then goes for it on a paired/flush board he has to be putting our hero on a big pair only? Hard to see how he would have hero on a low flush draw that they can put down. Even harder to see how villain would c/r all-in to push 2 pair off that board? Wouldn't hero have just checked behind on river?

    Readless could be wrong - may have found a bum just don't know it yet


  • edited October 2013
    Sorry for the delay this was at the begining of my cash session last night and suddenly i went from playing this 1 table to 7 in about 3mins so didnt have enough time to post back.

    1st things 1st i think its important to point out that i suck at HU im playing here to get a table started as there wernt any running at my level at the time so i opened a few i'm happy to play for 10mins or so to try and get a game going and improve my HU game. Won't give specific reads as i have left villians name in by accident but from what i have seen from playing villian in the last few days he seems like a fairly solid reg.

    I intially bet the river for value then when villian shoves puzzling it out i think he is doing this for value i havent seen anything yet that tells me villian can turn a pair into a bluff so am giving him credit. That said was wondering from more expierenced HU players is it ever correct to fold a flush in HU i presume if it is this would be the sort of situation?

    I did fold and am fairly happy that i actually managed a b/f usually its bet/know i should fold but call anyway like a donk
  • edited October 2013
    Think you played the hand perfectly. Gotta bet the flop and turn, and b/f on the river is good imo
  • edited October 2013
    very passive from villian - are you sure they not bluffing

  • edited October 2013
    In Response to Re: Erm...:
    very passive from villian - are you sure they not bluffing
    Posted by rancid
    No-one can be sure.

    passive, passive, passive, massive could obviously be a big bluff but equally could be super strong - to start with or by the river.

    I can think of a few scenarios where the play makes sense with board...

    flopped huge and got stronger on river 88?

    flopped a draw and made it to nut flush or even str8 flush.

    Could even be 55 which got v lucky

    I cant see many scenarios where the bluff line makes sense. maybe overpair ending up repping a flush draw, maybe if wasn't a paired board. 

    Generally like to see a villain shove and note what with before I start calling such big overbets. Been told that's too nitty on low level cash but on this hand I'm still folding.






  • edited October 2013
    Generally villians are gonna play sets more aggro on this board though imo to get value from draws and to be able to paly for stacks so think we can probably rule out almost every FH/quads alot of the time.
  • edited October 2013
    In Response to Re: Erm...:
    Generally villians are gonna play sets more aggro on this board though imo to get value from draws and to be able to paly for stacks so think we can probably rule out almost every FH/quads alot of the time.
    Posted by Lambert180
    +1

    Had a brief chat with rancid and another forum reg about this last night. The prevailing feeling was that we could expect the villain to play his sets and two-pairs faster on the flop and turn, to gain value. We also felt there was a good chance that the villain would play his flush draws faster as a semi-bluff at some stage.

    I can't claim credit for all those thoughts, but I do agree with them.

    Readless it remains a fold. However, if we know villain to be creative and aggressive, he could very easily be calling a weak pair on the flop and turn, but realising that he's beat when we bet the river.

    Flushes also form a higher proportion of the villain's perceived range than they do of ours by the river. Overpairs would likely 3-bet pre-flop. So he's repping a flush or nothing.

    If he does have a flush, would he check the river to us, knowing that we could easily check back one-pair hands?

    Good arguments for a call with reads.
  • edited October 2013
    To me it felt alot like a flush over flush situation

    I was watching a rerun on 865 yesterday and there was an anaylst on with Jen Mason i hadn't seen before it was the poker clinic episode about 3betting...Anywho he pointed out that the river check shove is pretty much never a bluff (he also went on to say that for the reason we should use it as a bluff occasionally) and i tend to agree with him i don't think i have ever seen anyone do this with air except myself and fail miserably at it lol
  • edited October 2013
    In Response to Re: Erm...:
    To me it felt alot like a flush over flush situation I was watching a rerun on 865 yesterday and there was an anaylst on with Jen Mason i hadn't seen before it was the poker clinic episode about 3betting...Anywho he pointed out that the river check shove is pretty much never a bluff (he also went on to say that for the reason we should use it as a bluff occasionally) and i tend to agree with him i don't think i have ever seen anyone do this with air except myself and fail miserably at it lol
    Posted by jams88
    It was Nick Wealthall. What he says is right.

    Still think we can call here, though. ;)
  • edited October 2013
    Why would villian let you check behind when the river hits

    would think villian would think that your going to check behind with all non flushies

    if villian has better and checked river over then gg wp sir


    even though it could be argued villian is leaving money on table by checking river and/or not getting more money in sooner


    gg
  • edited October 2013
    Why? It's quite simple. We have the betting lead, so why would villain bet his value hands and fold out all our bluffs? We're still going to bet a good amount of our value hands. Unless villain knows that we don't go for thin value in which case donking river might be OK. But we also need to donk some bluffs and not sure we have too many bluffs when we take this line.

    Also I can argue the exact same thing in reverse. if villain didn't have anything, why would he check river when we could easily just check behind and he loses? 

    Another general rule aside from "nobody c/r river as a bluff" is that if someone takes a strange line it's almost always for value.
  • edited October 2013
  • edited October 2013
    Lies, full house
Sign In or Register to comment.