So I was playing a little SnG on party poker today and had a big chip lead when this hand occured.

I had KQ 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?

I agree with this as a situational play, but you need a reckless image to pull it off.

<SPAN>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.

</SPAN>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=10 border=1><TBODY><TR><TD>My Move</TD><TD>His Move</TD><TD>Amount</TD></TR><TR><TD>Bet</TD><TD>Call or Fold</TD><TD>The most I can to get a call from a flush draw (small bet)</TD></TR><TR><TD>Check</TD><TD>Bet or Check Back</TD><TD>If he bets, it's the least amount possible to prevent a weak flush or non flush from calling. (big bet)</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Now you have a prisoners delimma, or a nash equalibrium, which would support the make a small bet.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=10 border=1><TBODY><TR><TD>Win a big bet from a bluffing player.</TD><TD>Win the pot as is from a checking player.</TD></TR><TR><TD>Win the post as is from a folding player.</TD><TD>Win a small bet from a calling player.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
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?

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.

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.

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.

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....

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

I rarely use this abreviation, but because it actually happened... lol.

This is true, and should be known as the Daniel Negreanu set up for that reason. But is it a profit maximizing technique?

This was pretty much my thinking when I was playing the hand. My rule of thumb at that moment was, "l'll let them run into me head first", instead of looking like the biggest bully there was. But by not looking like the bully, how can you induce action?