Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local

Calling on the river

Reply to Thread
  1. melancholyrb melancholyrb is offline

    Posts: 47
    Joined: Apr 05

    Jan 20th, 2006 (1/20/2006 1:27pm)

    I was looking over my Pokertracker database today, which has about 11,000 hands in it. Most of the data is useless...since it is from a year ago, when I played infrequently, and very poorly at that. (I read Super System in a weekend and was ready to beat the world!) Culling the data down to the last couple thousand hands, I noticed something interesting while looking at my Total Aggression stats... I never call on the river. My river call rate is 0%. It's all bets, raises or folds. This leads to some wonky numbers since my river aggression stat then includes a divide by zero...which is considered impolite at best.

    I'm wise enough not to attempt to play "results" oriented poker. But my question is....what are some situations where it would be profitable to call on the river?
  2. gidders gidders is offline

    Albania

    Posts: 2,106
    Joined: Jan 05

    Jan 20th, 2006 (1/20/2006 1:41pm) in reply to melancholyrb

    It would be a profitable situation to just call on the river, if you believe your opponent is bluffing, and your holding not very strong either, but probably better than him.

    One example I can think of.

    Someone raises on the button and you call with 97o in the BB.

    Flop comes K92, and you check and he checks behind.

    Turn comes a 9 - and you check and he bets, and you flat call.

    River comes a 3. You decide here to check because...

    A) he is the type of player who would have bet a pair of kings on the flop, and wouldn't give a free card holding a hand like KQ (unless he has KK - which is another reason to check)

    B) he won't call any bet you make because he has absolutely nothing, and you are not giving him a shot to bluff at the pot.

    So you've deciphered that you have the best hand with 3 of a kind, but the only way your going to probably make any money on this hand, against this player is to check the river and let him bluff at it.

    The reason you would only flat call on the river, is because if he IS bluffing, he won't call your reraise anyways. If he IS strong (K's full) you'll be losing way less chips by showing weakness by checking the river, rather than leading it and allowing yourself to be raised.

    You are quite positive that you have the best hand with your 3 of a kind, but it really makes no sense to raise the river, because your only going to be called, or raised by a hand that beats yours.
  3. Sooted_Aces Sooted_Aces is offline

    Posts: 301
    Joined: May 05

    Jan 20th, 2006 (1/20/2006 1:41pm) in reply to melancholyrb

    if the pot is 1,000,000 and he bets 100
  4. Adam Adam is offline Emperor

    Atlanta, GA
    United States

    Posts: 12,629
    Joined: Dec 04

    Jan 20th, 2006 (1/20/2006 1:44pm) in reply to melancholyrb

    any time you believe you're ahead (at least enough to justify calling for what's already in the pot) but aren't totally convinced, particularly when your hand isn't strong enough to believe you can get a weaker hand to call a raise.

    I do something like this all the time:

    My hand in the big blind: Q T. Flop comes J T 4 with two hearts. SB checks, I make a small bet, he calls. Turn comes a blank, he checks, I check. River comes another blank, he bets, I call. Most would say if you put your opponent on a draw or a hand where one card could put them ahead of you, you should always bet, but I don't always agree. Most times, I'd bet, but sometimes, particularly when you don't desperately need what's in the pot, you can mix it up by checking the turn to induce a bluff on the river, knowing you'll get away if certain cards hit. Your hand can't beat many "good" hands, so it's silly to raise here on the end, as you're not gonna get action from something you're ahead of.

    Some people don't play showdown poker though at all, and it sounds like you're one of them. You're in good company there with a lot of top players.
     
  5. gidders gidders is offline

    Albania

    Posts: 2,106
    Joined: Jan 05

    Jan 20th, 2006 (1/20/2006 1:50pm) in reply to Adam

    I agree, Adam.

    I think that's one of the MAIN things that a lot of players fail to understand when it comes to SNG play.

    Just because you are ahead, and you put your opponent on a drawing hand - DOES NOT mean you have to bet an amount that makes it unprofitable for him to call in the long run.

    It is a combination between saving yourself bets if he DOES hit his drawing hand, and getting yourself a decent sized pot if he doesn't.

    I believe it's called Small Ball poker, but it's hard to explain to someone "if you think you have the best hand here, check behind him on the turn and let him draw to his flush for free".

    "Huh?"

    In cash games, I believe that statisical stuff (pot odds, making it unprofitable for your opponent to call in the long run makes sense)... but in a tournament or SNG where the blinds are ever raising, and the tournament is reduced to X amount of chips... you need to have a sort of different mindset, rather than a Pot Odds based mindset that a lot of people have, which stems from Cash Games.
  6. melancholyrb melancholyrb is offline

    Posts: 47
    Joined: Apr 05

    Jan 20th, 2006 (1/20/2006 2:02pm) in reply to Adam

    Lol at Sooted's response.

    Thanks for the replies...those make alot of sense. I know one of the things I need to work on is when I know I am probably the weaker hand, I shouldn't bet when the only callers would have me beaten.

    Having been a rock for most of my early poker life (which worked awesome in my home games since all my friends were LAGs), I'm just getting used to the whole 'aggression' thing ;)

    I totally agree with your comments about SnGs and MTTs, Gidders...which is one of the things that makes them more interesting to me in general than ring games. Pot odds don't matter alot of the time...because of the implied odds. It's a different kind of implied odds than just taking into account the amount of chips you can win later in that hand though... it's taking into account larger strategic objectives. There are alot of times where pros make plays that look really donkish on a small scale...but make sense if you take into account things like stack size going into a final table, or the ability to knock out a talented player at that moment... plays like that all depend on long run value...not immediate.
    Thread Starter
Reply to Thread

Similar Threads