Hand Advice
|
|
Please help support pocketfives by using our links when choosing to download a new site!
Full Tilt · PokerStars · Ultimate Bet · Players Only · Bodog
So I was playing a little SnG on party poker today and had a big chip lead when this hand occured.
I had K Q on the small blind with two limpers in front of me.
The flop came A Q 5. So I flopped middle pair, nut flush draw.
I make a pot size feeler bet. The big blind calls, and the other limper folds.
I suspect he might have the J or 10 of .
The turn is a blank. I decide I'm going to make a bet small enough to give a flush draw the right odds to call. So I bet a third of the size of the pot. He calls. The river is the 7.
NOW THE POINT: Do I check it to him and let him try to make a bluff or do I bet out and hope to get a call with the nuts?
If I bet out, I can only hope to value bet the pot and he's either going to call, fold (i don't suspect he'd raise here with the T or J high flush). He can't possibly call if he isn't holding a spade.
If I check, he could make a bigger stab then my value bet by trying to buy his way out of trouble, or check it back.
Which is the correct option?
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes i overbet the pot in that situation. Obvious looking bluff, depends on who you're playing with. Just my opinion though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
By
NIURAT
on
04-30-2005 12:13 PM
|
|
|
I agree with this as a situational play, but you need a reckless image to pull it off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By
steve
on
04-30-2005 3:10 PM
|
|
|
If he's just called your bets on the flop and turn, it's unlikely he has a huge hand, and would probably love to check the river down. In any event, it's probably not worth the risk of a check. If you have the stone cold nuts, bet them. If he folds you win what was in the pot, if he doesn't, you win a bigger pot. Win win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By
NIURAT
on
04-30-2005 3:32 PM
|
|
|
Yes, but I'm winning this hand no matter what. The four to a flush might deminish the relative strength on his hand. If i bet, I shut out my attempt to induce a bluff, which could be more profitable then a value bet.
| My Move |
His Move |
Amount |
| Bet |
Call or Fold |
The most I can to get a call from a flush draw (small bet) |
| Check |
Bet or Check Back |
If he bets, it's the least amount possible to prevent a weak flush or non flush from calling. (big bet) |
Now you have a prisoners delimma, or a nash equalibrium, which would support the make a small bet.
| Win a big bet from a bluffing player. |
Win the pot as is from a checking player. |
| Win the post as is from a folding player. |
Win a small bet from a calling player. |
But, how this differs from the Nash Equalibrium, is that you're only garanteed the pot as is, and not an increased profiting situation. Therefore, why wouldn't you attempt to maximize the potential of this profitably opportunity?
|
|
|
My question is this.....Why did you ask this question?
It seems to me that by you saying "Yes, but I'm winning this hand no matter what. The four to a flush might deminish the relative strength on his hand. If i bet, I shut out my attempt to induce a bluff, which could be more profitable then a value bet." That you have already made up your mind that you have the best answer to this question!!
I am sorry, but I don't understand why people keep writing posts asking for help if they are only going to respond to those that try to help with reasons they feel that those poeple are wrong???
Maybe I'm missing somethig here (wouldn't be the first time), but it just seems like this happens a whole lot.
Yogi
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By
NIURAT
on
04-30-2005 5:41 PM
|
|
|
It's the search for intelligent life really.
But it's also an attempt for someone to reply with something profound I didn't think of, or to see what players I respect on here have to say.
I've made up my mind, but it's often I'm disagreed with, which is why I classify poker as a social science, and part of the reason I enjoy reading stuff on pocketfives.
This question would probably be best suited for the poker discussion section, because I'm looking to start a discussion on poker stradegy that I've already formulated an opinion on, but the poker dicussion section seems for non-play type of dicussion. So you're right. I'm not really looking for advice, but I don't think I need to be in order to post here. I just need to identify a contraversional poker situation with different schools of thought.
And I might not have the best answer. Case and point. Watch Daniel Negreanu play a nut hand on the river. He often throws in a way ridiculous under bet knowing that if is opponent has any type of hand they MUST call because of the odds they're getting. He's really hoping for a raise. He's done this move so many times, he can bluff with small bets, which is just amazing.
|
|
|
Hey man I don't think for a second that you have to be looking for advice to post on this site by any means, unless of course you're posting in the advice section! If you want to start a discussion, then say that you want to start a discussion!
You asked a question twice in your first post without stating that you just wanted to start a discussion, so that's why I said what I said.
I just see this kind of thing all the time and it makes me not want to respond to help someone out when I really should.
I love this site and all that it stands for and just think the question and advice section should be for those that really want questions answerd and advice given.
Just my thoughts is all, not wanted to start a thing!!
Yogi
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By
steve
on
05-01-2005 12:00 AM
|
|
|
One critical assumption your analysis relies upon is that it is equally likely that each of the four outcomes will obtain. In my opinion, a check-call on both streets indicates weakness, meaning that the other player will likely check it down if you check. (A check-call can sometimes also indicate extreme strength, but as you had the nuts here, that wasn't the case this time.) I could be wrong about this. But assuming that it isn't 50/50 that he will check back to you, then you have to get into EV calculations. I'll leave that to the scientists, but my basic premise is that in most cases, it's worth risking a fold by betting, rather than giving your opponent (who has indicated weakness) the opportunity to show down for free, when you know you will win the pot. If you have a good read on your opponent and can be relative certain that it is more likely that he will bluff the river, sure, check. But most often we don't have that good of a read on our opponents (at least I don't), and all else being equal, I'm not going to give a free river.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By
NIURAT
on
05-01-2005 12:32 AM
|
|
|
Very interesting. I like the reassessment. The think the expected value on this would be tremendously difficult to calculate because you would need several trials to find the most possible you could bet that would make any particular opponent fold, which means you would need some type time with him at the table. I had never played with this particular player before, so for me at the time, the situations where equally probable, even though they weren’t.
An important note though is that although we might not know the exact percentages of what his likely move will be, we are allowed to assume he'll make what he perceives as the most profititable move.
|
|
|
I don't have much to add here other than the observation that in poker we make far more money off the mistakes our opponents make than the brilliance of our play. In this situation you are HOPING for your opponent to make a huge mistake by betting into your nuts on the river.
It being entirely uncertain whether or not he will make this play I think the best move is to bet. Now if you underbet-- let's say 1/3 or less of the pot-- this also can induce a bluff, and if not he will be compelled to call so either way you're EV is pretty high.
If you have this guy on a string and just own him and you think he pushes or makes a big bet in response to a check on the river then by all means check, but I lean towards a bet here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By
NIURAT
on
05-01-2005 4:25 PM
|
|
This as a long run play, is probably the best move. I elimated the chance of him raising me because he seemed like a weak and timid player more proun to call then to grow a pair and raise.
|
|
|
|
I say check here, in fact, I might type something like "god damn river" in the chat box before I check...I know that is "against the book", but I'll tell you why. First, if he has no hand, and you bet he is going to fold, if he HAS a hand and you check, he should bet. So whether you check or bet, youll get additional money from him if he has a hand. If he DOESNT have a hand he's going to fold to your bet anyway, so:
CHECK
a) get money if he has a real hand because he will bet
b) induce the bluff if he DOESNT have a hand
c) he checks also and you win no additional money
BET
a) he calls you with a real hand
b) he folds, you win no additional money
Checking gives you MORE ways to win additional money....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By
NIURAT
on
05-02-2005 11:22 AM
|
|
|
This also another good point. If he had the J or T , it's very likely he'll bet out for value.
|
|
|
i say an underbet is the best play-- you will win no matter what-- what you are really after is to appear weak (underbet) and represent the 4 flush killed your small flush-- if he had the 2nd highest flush or smelled a weakness on your part he might raise your weak bet and then you can pounce (or value bet a re-raise). gl
|
|
|
|
|