I loved this hand on the flop...but the turn card really really sucked. What did you think of my play throughout the hand? My opponent had been on the table with me a lot and seen me betting with draws and nothing often. I was getting raised alot. Thoughts?

Ultimate Bet No-Limit Hold'em, $2 BB (9 handed)

saw flop|saw showdown

Button ($97)
Hero ($259.70)
BB ($42.15)
UTG ($196.70)
UTG+1 ($224.50)
MP1 ($248.25)
MP2 ($149.50)
MP3 ($498)
CO ($27.60)

Preflop: Hero is SB with , .
1 fold, UTG+1 calls $2, MP1 calls $2, 2 folds, CO calls $2, 1 fold, Hero completes, BB checks.

Flop: ($10) , , (5 players)
Hero bets $10, BB folds, UTG+1 folds, MP1 raises to $20, CO folds, Hero calls $10.

Turn: ($50) (2 players)
Hero checks, MP1 checks.

River: ($50) (2 players)
Hero bets $25, MP1 raises to $125, Hero calls $100.

Final Pot: $300

Results later...

Just looking at this hand objectively...my river bet sucked. It was a value bet..but it was a poor one with bad timing.

If he's on a flush draw...If I bet the river obviously he's gonna fold. If I check it to him...i may induce a bluff.

The only thing I can see him calling here is with something like A10. He obviously didn't hold a high pocket or he would have raised preflop in LP. And he may even bet that A10 on the river anyway.

The other big problem with betting here (which is what happened to me)...is if I get raised big. By checking I prevent the hand from becoming a monster without holding the nuts...


The call on the river was probably -EV. I'm not sure the pot was big enough to justify my call there.

Kenny, go back and look at the first post I'm thinking, that the third card should probably be not the ??

Presumably he had a set and checked the turn hoping you'd make your draw on the river? Nasty...

How horrendous to make your draw on the river and to not be able to bet it... I never would have considered that there was no value bet on, so if it is a mistake, it's a great one to spot.

For the call on the end to be right, I think that you need to know (i) he'd raise pre-flop with TT, (ii) he'd raise the river with T9s as well as 44.

I like your flop and turn play (though I'm not generally brave enough to lead into more than 2 people with standard draws).

What did Iceman think?

(Rhound - isn't it the 4 giving Kenny a whacky double gutshot?)

It was the . I was on AIM with Kenny when this hand was played. I thought the guy had AT until he raised the river.

Kenny played the hand with no advice from me, but I wouldve foilded to the river raise. I also wouldnt have bet the river for the reasons Kenny stated.

Rhound,

The 4 gives Kenny a double-gutshot, so it is essentially the same as a 4 would be.

Kenny,

I would almost always fold to that river raise. A big river raise into a small pot rarely means a bluff. In this case, you will generally only beat a bluff, unless the player is clueless. It seems that he made a minraise on the flop with a set of 4s, filled up on the turn, and then waited to trap you on the river. Unfortunately you made your straight, but ask yourself, what hand would he make the raise with on the river that you beat, other than a pure bluff? He didn't minraise you with just a 4 on the flop, so if he is not on a bluff he has you beat with some sort of a boat.

Well... I called and he held [7h]. That's what I thought he'd have "if I won." I thought 44 was a monster possibilty.

It seems my play on the river was pretty ugly...but I lucked out because the guy was so utterly fooled by my flop bet that he couldn't figure me for a straight.

Hey, I'm a fan of stealing this little pots but I probably would of checkd and passed on this one. The board has a 2 flush and only one of your straight cards is the nuts. I probably would of value bet the river like you did and then fold most of the time.

He's got a straight here guys... what is everyone saying to fold for?

Not only does he have a straight, but he has a completely disguised straight. a 7 or a bluff are just too likely for me to drop when I'm getting 2:1

Fair enough Palman, but if Im the opponent, you better fold.

The guy misplayed his hand which I wont do. At least not on an easy hand like this. The guy had trip 7s and the nut flush draw at the turn and he checked behind which is moronic after Kenny bet and called a flop raise.

2-1 only does you any good if theres at least a 33% chance youre ahead which against me there wont be when I make that river raise like that.

heh palman you make me feel better about myself.

maybe I can pick up women now too? You never know with a little added confidence!!


lol seriously though...i'm glad somebody said call. The straight was disguised and I felt like there was a strong posibbilty I had the winning hand. What do you think about the river bet though palman? I really do think that was a bad bet.

Ice- if we discussed every hand as if it were a sane opponnent, there'd be a clear cut play in almost every situation. When you've got a straight, and you're getting 2:1... it's clearly a +EV situation against your average opponnent.

Think about how great of a bluffing opportunity this situation is. He's got a straight and most people say to fold it. So say if your opponnent had AK, how +EV would his bluff to 125 be here?

I like the call. If I assumed I was up against someone as good as Iceman every time, I would quit the game today.

I like the play....what a horrendous check on the turn by that guy....he gave you a free chance at a 4-outer and gave you the hand....His thinking was obviously that he had the nuts, that you were on TPTK given the flop bet....terrible play......i like the value bet on the river....chances are low he has the boat, chances are decent he checked the trips figuring he may boat it or make his nut flush on the river....

My only thought would be to reraise given the disguised str8.......though he could have reraised the flop w/ 2pr and spiked the turn for the boat....

I think its a good play....i think you bet harder on the river and you induce a call, not a raise...maybe you didn't want to deal with the raise, or to have that much at stake without the nuts, but i think you profit more from the conservative value bet....

My initial thought about your $25 on the river was that I didn't like it, but upon reflection it might have been the ideal bet.

Consider this..... if he has a boat and you check it to him, The range of amounts he will bet will be between $25-$50... for an average of $37.5. If you lead out for $25 and he has the boat, the range of amounts he will bet will be between $75-$125, for an average of $100.

Thus if he has a boat, leading out costs you an average of $62.

However, there are a WIDE variety of hands he will call you down with for $25. Any 10 (which is his most likely holding) some people will call any pair or even AK here for a half pot sized bet. Regardless, you just need someone to call you 2.5:1 as often as he will have a boat, which I think is very likely. I think in fact you might get someone to call you 4-5x as often as they will have a boat. So if we say he will call you 5 times as often without the boat, 83% of the time you are winning 25, and 16% of the time you are losing $62. Thus, under this scenario, your EV is +11 by betting here.

Then you have to compare alternative bets. I think if you bet $50, you drastically reduce the hands he will call with, and cost yourself more on average when he has a boat.

Is there $11 +EV checking and inducing a bluff equity when you factor in the times you check and he bets with the boat? That's a tougher decision. I'd think initially that there isn't.