This one comes from a $10-$25 game against a very tough and creative opponent. We’ve played together a few times in Maryland, Las Vegas, and Pittsburgh, and if I recall correctly he once told me that he learned a lot from my Poker Savvy Plus videos, though he’s now a crusher in his own right. I believe he’s an occasional podcast listener and blog reader as well. He’s got a well-deserved reputation for being fearless and he loves putting people to the test and running “sick” bluffs, though he’s also smart enough to use that image to get paid on big hands. I recently and wisely seat-changed from his immediate right to his immediate left.
I start the hand with about $4000, Villain bought in for like $30K and covers the table by a lot.
I raise to $50 UTG with As Kh (been experimenting with min-raising my whole range pre-flop), a good player UTG3 calls, a weaker player in the CO calls, and Villain calls from the BB.
Flop ($225) Ks 4s 4d. Villain checks, I bet $100, UTG3 calls, CO folds, and Villain check-raises to $400. I think a bit and call, UTG3 folds.
Turn ($1025) 9c. Villain checks, I check.
River ($1025) 9d. Villain checks, Hero?
I’ll be happy to field questions/comments on the entire hand, but mostly I’m curious to know whether you bet the river, and if so how much and how you’d respond to a check-raise. Post your comments here and I’ll post my own thoughts and results on or about Friday.
I would check back river. He probably put you on AK or AA, hes maybe trying to induce you with that river check. That makes sense because you guys have history playing and its stupid bluffing on that flop OOP and then check turn and river, no sense for me.
The question I’d have to ask myself here is: If I bet, am I willing to get all my chips in? Given the player’s description (biased towards a bluffer), I feel that he’ll be putting in the right amount of bluff to value raises to my bet, regardless of the bet size I choose on the river. So if I bet, unless it’s a ridiculously small underbet, I need to be willing to get the rest of my stack (3.5k) in the middle in this spot if he raises me all-in. To block his raise, I could overbet, including shove, which will definitely get called by a 4 or some lucky 9. A shove might induce him to call with some PPs that he check-raised the flop with, as that play seemed “squeezy” but now your play seems “bluffy”.
So your choices come down to:
– check, because you don’t want to risk playing for stacks in a spot where you don’t feel you know where you are.
– underbet, because you want to induce a non-all in bluff raise that you can call, but you are only somewhat confident to be ahead of his raising range but definitely ahead of his calling range
– regular bet, because you are comfortable calling a large potential bluff raise, including all-in
– overbet, because you think you are ahead, it might induce him to call weak, and it reduces his leverage on his bluffs
In game flow I check out of pure confusion, but enumerating this out, I’d bet 2k. He’s not raising a 4 on this river, and he loses all bluff raise leverage as you should call this river after such a large bet. Except that you won’t because any raise should have your hand beat unless he sees through your rationale for your large bet. And I think this is the bet that will get him to make the worst of his calling mistakes and is the most +EV.
Nice post, Eddie. I really like this approach of laying out and comparing all of your options. I think your comments on the first three are all spot on, so I just want to say a few things about overbetting. Here I think your analysis is a bit muddled. On the one hand you seem to think an overbet will appear weak and thus induce him to call with weak hands, but you also seem to think it will appear strong such that he won’t raise with a 4 or a bluff. I think it would help you to think in terms of specific hands that might take certain actions. For instance:
What hands do you think Hero could/should overbet as a bluff here?
What hands to you think Villain might call with if he suspects a bluff? (Actually I see that you mention pocket pairs as a candidate here, but I’d question whether those would check-raise the flop)
Calling to close the action gives villain a relatively wide range in this spot, though capped because he didn’t 3-bet. So, he might choose to squeeze in this spot with 100% of his range some fraction of the time (as opposed to only some fraction of his range 100% of the time). That’s my rationale for putting PPs in his c/r range.
I feel like zee, in that I feel underqualified to be answering the post, but I like the exercise anyway. So from my perspective, I don’t have the comfort level yet to induce a raise for my stack in a spot where my opponent can reduce my EV to close to 0. Whereas betting a regular amount on the river will generally elicit calls from bluff catchers which we beat, it’s possible that this opponent will turn those into re-bluffs versus our value range. Once I started to explore the overbet, it seemed to me that we start to negate his bluff raising options as we increase the bet, which I liked. Then, maybe over optimistically, I started to wonder if our odd line could then elicit calling mistakes from him. Ax? PPs > 44? They seemed likely to call as bluff-catchers in this spot because of the curiosity factor elicited by our line.
It’s true that overbetting makes it harder for him to bluffraise, but this is because it (should) polarize Hero’s range. Villain needs to call a big bet less often than a small bet, which means that he should be folding his more marginal bluff-catchers. The result of that is that Hero can’t value bet as thinly with a big bet. Another result of that is that Villain can’t shove 4x for value, as 9s Xs and KK are both in Hero’s range, and the overbet should take a lot of the more marginal stuff (like AK) out of Hero’s range. Because it’s hard for Villain to shove for value, it’s also hard for him to shove as a bluff. So yes, the overbet reduces his ability to bluff raise, but for the same reasons it reduces his ability to call with hands that Hero beats.
It seems that there isn’t a good argument for betting any amount on the river. We aren’t confident that we can make him make a mistake no matter the size of the bet, and we are afraid of putting ourselves in a position where we will be making a mistake. That leaves checking the river.
That begs the question: Why didn’t you bet the turn?
Were you trying to disguise the strength of your hand?
Or do you believe that your hand’s strength is neutral or weak versus his flop c/r range?
My initial reaction is that villain’s range seems very polarized here. I expect us to be ahead the large majority of the time, but I don’t expect villain to have hands that can call a bet. Instead, I expect villain to either fold or check raise us on the river. If he does it correctly (and villain, as described, seems likely to balance a check raise properly), we can’t win by bet/calling or bet/folding.
Preflop, we are UTG and villain is in the big blind and overcalled after two calls, so our range is considerably stronger than villain’s range. He is calling one extra BB and closing the action. I don’t expect him to call with junk – he knows he is out of position to two strong players (UTG and UTG3) who should have fairly strong ranges with an UTG open and UTG3 flat, but I expect a fairly wide range, with plenty of suited connectors, suited aces and the like.
When villain check raises this board after a cbet from UTG and a call from UTG3, he certainly has some 4x in his range, while an UTG opening range probably doesn’t have any 4x. Since villain sounds very good, he’s going to balance his raises with 4x with some bluffs (e.g., Ts9s-6s5s, 6d5d). Moreover, while Andrew could easily have a Kx in his hand (and even has the 3 combos of KK), this flop misses some hands in an UTG range that might cbet (e.g., AsQs, AsJs, QsJs). UTG3’s overcall should provide some caution (UTG3 probably has some weaker Kx and JJ-77 hands that can call if Andrew folds), but UTG3 hasn’t shown much strength at this point.
I think its questionable whether villain has any Kx hands in his range here. On the one hand, a hand like KQ or KJ can easily check-call here and check-raising Kx into a stronger UTG range doesn’t seem very good (and Villain is clearly much to good to be raising “to see where he is at”). Also, Andrew and UTG3 collectively only need to defend about half the time to prevent the check raise from being immediately profitable with ATC. It seems that Andrew can therefore defends this modest sized check raise with Kx+ (AA-KK, AK, KQ, KJs). I’m not sure about this point though – it depends on Andrew’s opening range UTG and cbet frequency into 3 players. It’s possible that Andrew needs to defend with QQ-TT, in which case KQ is getting thin value against {AA-KK, AK, KQ, KJs, QQ-TT} – particularly if Andrew also floats with draws like AsQs and AsJs.
The check on the turn is puzzling. The 9c is a blank, so nothing has changed since the flop. From villain’s perspective, Andrew likely has a bunch of Kx type hands in his range, the occasional monster (i.e., KK that has no fear of any draw which he is using to protect the rest of his flop calling range) and maybe some spade draws. It’s possible that villain is simply giving up with some of his bluffs, but I would expect 4x to usually bet again to get value from Kx. It’s also possible that villain had hand like 9s8s that now has some shown
When we check back the turn, I assuming that this is because Andrew thinks its unlikely that villain has any worse Kx in his range and that a bet will simply fold air and get calls from better. However, when we check the turn, it seems likely that villain can take KK out of our range, since I believe we would want to bet that to start building a pot vs the 4x in villain’s range.
The river is a blank as well. I think villain can be very confident that we don’t have 9x in our hand or 4x. If we generally bet KK on the turn to extract value from 4x, our range on the river is capped at bluff catchers.
When villain checks the river, that seems very polarizing and rather suspicious. If villain did (contrary to the above expectation) have KQ in his range, I would expect him to bet/fold the river for value (since we are checking back any QQ-TT we might have here and the only reason for villain to have KQ in his range is if he thinks we will call his flop raise with QQ-TT). As a result, I expect Villain to have a very polarized range of 4x and air after the river check. If we bet $500 into villain, I expect that villain will never call, and instead will often fold, but will occasionally shove on us, so the pot is $5075 and we face a $3050 call. Given the description of this player, it seems likely that we will face 4x (or the occasional 9x) 62.5% of the time and a bluff 37.5%, so the EV of a call is $0. In contrast, checking back is +EV, as we win the $1025 a significant portion of the time.
I know from listening to the podcast that Andrew frequently admonishes against being afraid to bet the river for fear of a rare check raise, but in this case, we clearly have a villain who is capable of a check raise with a balanced range. More importantly, I don’t see any value targets in villain’s range.
I suppose that we could get around this issue if we don’t cap our range on the turn and check back KK. However, I would think that it would be more profitable over the long term to bet KK on the turn for value – i.e., the immediate EV from value betting outweighs the EV lost by sacrificing the ability to make a thin value bet on an ultra-blank river.
Ughh I am vastly unqualified to analyze a hand like this, but here goes.
His c/r on the flop can be a spade draw, a 4, or air. I don’t think villain would c/r just 1 pair because that’s turning his hand into a bluff.
When he checks on the turn, I think that mostly takes out 4x from his range. Your hand looks very much like a King so it would make sense to keep betting 4x for value instead of doing some fancy intricate play.
So on the river he likely has (1) a busted draw/air or (2) a busted spade draw that turned into a full house (T9ss for example). I think (2) makes sense here because he would slow down on the turn since he picked up SDV with the 9.
Versus any of these hands… I don’t see any value in betting. Not unless you were planning to induce a raise, which doesn’t make that much sense because Villain can have a 9. So I would check behind.
I heavily discount pure bluffs from villains flop c/r range because your range to cbet into 3 people as the UTG opener, and UTG+3’s cold-calling range are strong enough that villain needs a fair amount of equity to profitably bluff. So when villain c/r the flop, I think he’s polarized to 4x and flush draws. With this turn and river, he never has a worse 1 pair hand with which to call a river bet. And because you have the As, he can’t even hero-call you with the NFD. This analysis leads me to check behind the river.
However, this still doesn’t solve the question: what does villain have? Or, what would a very good player want to play this way? I really don’t think he should check 4x (and therefore his draws, to balance) OTT since you’re likely to check back your pairs against his polarized range, and he loses a lot of value when the river brings the flush. I guess 9sxs gains showdown value, but only against hero’s flush draws which dominate it (i.e., reverse implied odds) and can bluff on the river. There’s merit in slowplaying K4 (I assume he’s only playing K4s, but he is getting 7.4:1 pre) since it blocks Kx in hero’s range, and villain would like hero to improve to a flush instead of fold AsJs OTT. Mostly, I think villain’s turn check is indicative of him giving up/looking for a free card with a weak FD. OTR, he may think that you aren’t folding Kx often enough for him to bluff.
Given that villain’s range seems very weak, and that he can make some big bluffs, I can see an argument for bet/calling the river. I don’t have a great sense for sizing here, but I’d say $400. Too small might make him suspicious, too large lets him insta-fold Ts8s.
Interesting hand, a bit out of my depth, but I’ll give it a shot:
I’d work it out in my head in game like this – 1/3 of the time villain has a weaker Kx (realise people are saying this is unlikely, but at live NL200 to NL500 I see this move even from decent players with KQ-K10), another 1/3 of the time he has a 4, and another 1/3 of the time he has a busted spade flush draw.
Based on this, he may well call a small-ish bet of $350 to $475 with Kx, check raise us with a 4, and either fold or check-raise us with a busted flush draw seeing as he is a balanced and strong player.
In this light, Can’t see checking back as a huge error here at all.
However, I feel I miss too much value sometimes OTR (a common leak right), so I also like the idea of betting small-ish (as above 350-475) and calling a check raise unless it’s for stacks (importantly, how does he view our ability to pick off big bluffs?) and/or I can get some read that he really has the 4.
(first comment here, great blog / site Andrew, thanks for having me).
I think this is a check.
When we are value betting in position with a hand we cannot call a check-raise with (I don’t think we should be here), then it is not just the calling range we have to be beating, we have to have the calling frequency be large enough, in comparison to the raising frequency. I think re-opening the betting here is going to be a pretty big mistake since villain can have both 4X and 9X. Villain can have a substantial number of both, I would say. (This being the reason I don’t want to call the check – raise).
So then we consider what worse we could be called by? So few hands seem to qualify. Then, in practice, villain’s calling frequency will be quite low. We always beat the hands in that calling frequency, it seems to me. But villain’s action in response to our river bet is most likely to be fold or raise. They will call seldom. So if they fold 70% raise 20% and call 10%, we should check, even if we always win when they call.
Furthermore, put through the prism of a relative skill function, we should be trying to value bet our best opponent in a considerably less exploitative way than any other opponent, this being a perfect case in point.
It looks like our TPTK is the best hand right now. On the flop, villain could have a 4, K or a pocket pair lower than Ks, flush draw or just a stone cold bluff. AA is extremely unlikely but I guess it can’t be ruled out completely. Once villain checked the turn and river, the only hand we are losing to is a 4 and it has become a lot less likely after he checked 2 streets. It looks like villain was making a move or has a pocket pair or K with a weaker kicker and has decided to try to check the hand down.
The question is, would villain call on the river with those hands? If we get check-raised, we won’t like it but I don’t see how we can fold.
Against a tough opponent like this one, who is unlikely to give us action with worse hands, I would just check behind the river expecting to win the hand a large percentage of the time. I don’t think our potential gain is worth reopening the betting and getting owned by a bluff or calling and being shown a hand we didn’t expect.
Been a while since I’ve posted or really thought about poker. Life. 🙂
If we’re betting what worse hands are we hoping will call? Kx? I think the over all problem is our hand range is capped at 2p or quads if we’re min raising 4’s UTG. (excluding 9’s for running quads)
I feel like if we bet in this situation that our opponent can check raise his whole range and we’re still not sure what he’s on. It seems like this is a good spot for our opponent to check-raise his whole range of busted flush draws, K rag and full houses.
Maybe I didn’t articulate that well enough but I think we should check because our opponent is in a good spot to bluff and value bet given our hand range.
I’m confused.
By the river you look like you have a marginal hand. Does villain really take this line with his monsters? Does he check two streets intending to check/raise river? And wouldn’t that be wishful thinking on his part?
It seems like a complicated line to just get value out of Kx.
Maybe I’m leveling myself here but I would think that him checking back twice after a check raise is more than likely inducing you to bet your king. I would expect him to keep firing on the turn with his (semi)bluffs because he should know that it’s going to take more than one bet to get you off your hand, especially when you bet into more than one opponent. Check/raise, check, check with a flush draw (or a weaker king) is a line that is commonly seen at lower stakes by weak players, so him taking this line is a red flag to me. He’s not a fish, yet taking a fishy line.. If he is taking this line with worse hands, then you betting sets you up to get raised off your hand and if he’s taking this line to trap you, checking back loses you the minimum.
Therefore I check.
I min-raise most hands online but I don’t think it is a very good idea in most live games because it will result in too many multi-way pots that are too hard to play. Almost all live players call too often pre IMO so it is better to play exploitatively and raise larger with a strong range.
—
As played on the flop I think we should 3-bet. The only reason to just call is to keep in Villain’s bluffs but I don’t think there are enough of those considering UTG3 has called. I expect Villain to have more flush draws than fours in his flop raising range. That said, I do think Villain should be calling with his flush draws instead of raising but I think most people, even good players, often raise flush draws here.
The downsides to raising are:
1) We put in more against fours but that’s going to happen anyway.
2) We fold Villain’s bluffs. Again, I don’t think Villain has enough bluffs for this to be a big deal.
3) We lose value when UTG3 folds. He’s going to fold to Villain’s check-raise a lot anyway.
—
As played on the turn I think we should bet. Villain has even fewer fours now and we should charge his draws. I would bet something a bit over half pot and probably shove over a raise.
—
As played I would check back the river. The only reason I can see to bet is to induce bluffs. I guess we’re rarely beaten but Villain does have several combos of 9X and maybe a few 4X. He may bluff raise often enough for an inducing bet to be better than checking but he doesn’t need many combos of 9X to balance a good number of bluffs considering the stack sizes set him up pretty well for a big bluff raise.
I don’t think we should bet/fold because I don’t think Villain has enough KX or pocket pairs that would play this way – especially the raise on the flop.
The turn may be a bet/raise and not bet/shove. I don’t feel like doing the math but I’d want to bet large enough to charge his draws but not much bigger than that.
Make a standard bet.
This is a very interesting hand in that it forces us to react to a very deliberate action by the villain. He check raised the flop, that is the action he choose for any number of reasons. The check raise is also the biggest alarm bell there is in poker. He did it for a reason, whatever that may be.
Our job is to make an educated decision in light of that. I won’t speculate on the why part of the check raise, we all know the many possible reasons and without knowing him or being there I could only guess. Our reaction to it is what matters. His line- checkraise, check, check. is out of the ordinary, it doesn’t follow the “normal” sequence of events. It is deliberatly confusing, in a very obvious kind of way. Designed to get us to alter the otherwise natural course of the hand (which would be check, bet. check, bet (either turn or river)
He is taking the betting lead, and then giving it up again. Knowing he is creative and capable, I would instead play the hand on its own merit, according to its own strength. I’m not going to slow down just because of one check raise from a brave opponent. AK in this spot is a strong hand. It does of course get much weaker taking into account the check raise by villain. But thats the point. Thats why we don’t let it influence our play to the extent villain wants.
As played I bet the river, 650 seems good. If he raises, then fold whatever % of the time you think is right. Just as a total guess I say maybe %20 he bluff raises all in.
I think he has plenty in his range that can call the river. I wouldn’t be surprised to see K7 and up. As well as 66+. I don’t think he calls with a bare ace.
Before his action on the flop I would have been okay with getting 2 streets of value from AK. By betting the river you still get 2 streets, and his C/R doesn’t have the effect intended. Or possibly intended, depending on why he took that line ot begin with:)
Whatever the reason, when playing against a particularly fearless and smart opponent. Defaulting your own play down to your own hand strength I think is an acceptable option. You just need to determine the best frequency with which to call his shove if he goes for the river check raise.
Just one little thing to add. Shutting down with TPTK, because of 1 check raise (especially from a known fearless player) is just way too weak.
Too passive to make money. I mean if we think about this simply. We have AK and flop a K on a paired board. We’re going to just check it down because someone raises our C bet? Too exploitable to play that way. We would never get value from Kx/pairs/draws. We need to suck it up, value bet, and then make the best decision we can if raised.
Checking it down gives this tough villain exactly what he wants, and that is to control the flow and make us play how HE wants. Don’t let it happen.
I had a similar thought. Still, we have to ask ourselves what our value target is, and that’s a bit difficult here.
On the other hand I recall Andrew saying in one of his TPE videos that in weird spots like this we shouldn’t be afraid of value betting. And we should default to betting more if we’re not sure.
What do you mean by too weak? Suppose you knew that I would check AK in this situation, how would you exploit that?
By too weak, I really mean the check would be missing value. We are still in a profitable situation here, there are credible hands the villain can have to pay us off. The key to all of that is the min raise preflop. There aren’t too many hands I won’t see a flop with for only a min-raise from my bigblind. Im thinking his range is close to any two cards. He could have Kx (or pp) and put in the check raise to elicit this exact response from us- a cheap showdown. He could call a river bet with Kx and any p.p.
Fearing a check raise is exactly what fearless opponents want us to do, its part of the bounty they get for playing that way. I just think we shouldn’t submit. If he wanted us to bet the turn he could have just called us on the flop. The checkraise from the blind on a paired board screams that he has a 4, and he knows it (and he knows we know it). Exactly why we should be even more inclined to make our value bet on the river. We shouldn’t go looking for monsters under the bed here.
If I knew you were checking AK, I could get a cheap showdown with all of my good but not great hands. Villain has every combo of Kx in his preflop range (except maybe AK) He also has all medium pocket pairs. And also all flush draws. By checking back AK twice, we give up control of this hand. Villain sets his own price for the showdown, and he gets a chance to hit for cheap. He’s exploiting us by making us miss our value, especially with a hand as strong as TPTK.
If Hero has a range of hands that are going to take this line (raise pre, bet/call, check, check) Then it should include more hands like QQ,JJ,1010, Ax flush draws and maybe a few high cards. That way we don’t mind so much checking down and giving up some potential value.
I think the issue is the only hands that are calling you in the end are Kx and other paris not 22, 33. (since they are counterfeited)
Busted draws aren’t calling at the end unless it’s with an Ace hoping for a chop. Also even though he’s getting like 7/1 on his call from the BB I think he has issues with Kx due to reverse implied odds much like he’s in now if he has Kx.
I feel like the hands that could pay you off at the end aren’t going to call a bet on the end because anything that he’d potential call with are most likely not winners.
I feel like if he’s going to do anything he’s going check raise just about anything on the end even his nutted hands.
I’m thinking maybe we should have bet the turn and checked the river if he called, or called the check raise on the turn and folded/check the river to a lead. Maybe that’s not right.
Don’t forget that hero has As, so busted draws with an ace don’t exist in villain’s range. And I just don’t think villain would play Kx or pocket pairs 55+ like this (particularly the flop raise) – so I’m not convinced he has a calling range at all here.
We don’t want to give Villain what he wants, but I don’t think tossing in a bet and crossing your fingers accomplishes that. There are lots of things that Villain might want in this hand, and one of them is for Hero to default to a ‘my hand is strong in the abstract = bet’ mindset that’s easy for him to play correctly/exploitatively against.
I also think it’s hasty to say this bet is a value bet without a good idea of what hands we want to get value from. After Hero raises UTG, then leads into 3 people on the flop and calls a check-raise (made and called with another player still in the hand), I don’t see him calling a river bet with most pocket pairs. 22-33, 55-88 likely wouldn’t check-raise the flop; a player this creative might do so as a bluff, but in that case he would either fire another barrel or won’t call a river bet; and he probably raises pre-flop with TT+? As for a worse Kx, he’s unlikely to fold out a better hand on the flop and he risks bloating a multiway pot OOP with a hand that’s easily dominated.
That’s my uneducated impression at least; I would like to be corrected by someone more informed than me.
Above my stakes and level, but I’ll give it a shot…Hero and villain familiar with each other’s level, and hero knows UTG3 as good, so I’ll go with villain having the same read. Hero c-bet on flop, called by UTG3 with still a wide range – weak Kx, weak pairs, flush draw, backdoor straights. The smallish reraise OOP into 2 players is suspicious to me, knowing the player’s familiarity with each other. As villain I’m think the only thing I’m doing here is making a bigger pot because I’m rarely getting a gift of two folds from position for this price.
I’m probably weak, but I don’t like to bet into the paired board that after weak lines by both players, against a tough opponent. I sheepishly check, and hope that if I have to show my kicker, I can use this line sometime later in a better situation to stack off. Otherwise you get to muck against a 4 or he mucks without either showing. Snowie liked the check too (I try to decide before doing that analysis).
It’s a dry flop so his check-raise can be interpreted as simply trying to fold out small pairs or worse. You called with a player behind indicating some strength: at this point your range might be 55+, Kx, 4x, flush draws or some air-call with QJ. The nine can’t help either of you (unless 99 just struck gold) so his check is a little odd. I would expect him to continue firing, reppping the best hand, still trying to fold out small pairs. There’s definitely a little alarm bell here however the river nine means we can heavily discount 99. Your range on river is still pretty much one-pair hands which will call a bet. If he could beat that, then missing a value bet and going for a check-raise seems fishy. I am more inclined to think that a river check-raise is a bluff and therefore I bet call. If he has quad 9s then fine, I’m happy that my strategy is incorrect when my opponent has quads.
Does he check raise a 4 then check turn and river? Doubt it. If you call the check raise you are calling the turn if he bets again so that line seems weird, he can definately rep spade draws by barrelling turn. I think we can discount 4’s from the turn and river checks.
Does he have a hand like A9 with the As blocker, or even a 9x hand 9xss? Maybe. But he’s leading the river to rep a bluff and get called by Kx.
I think the value range we are looking at is , Ax who might check call a bet thinking they are chopping or even good, 55-88 that will check call a possible better two pair, and all around a weak/medium strength range at best.
Given his likely range, how comfortable are we getting raised if we bet? I would say he has very few to zero nutted hands in his range, and by checking the turn we can definitely rep an Ax type hand looking to steal a chop if he has Ax.
Therefore I hardly expect him to raise us on this river when we do bet with anything but bluffs (including Ax as a bluff), and I think we can definitely get a call out of his entire range of pp, Ax which are definitely in his flop X/raise, check turn and check river line.
Bet 1/3 pot on the river.
I think one of the crucial factors in this hand is that hero has the ace of spades, which removes quite a few of the most likely semi-bluffing hands from villain’s flop raising range. Thus, when he raises the flop his range is more weighted towards 4s than it would usually be.
At the risk of stating the obvious, we can only bet the river if either:
(a) We think a worse hand will call us, or
(b) We can induce a bluff
I just can’t think of any hands that fit (a). You raised UTG so he must give you a pretty strong range, and so I don’t see any reason for him to raise your flop bet with KQ, or any worse made hand (I would expect him to call on the flop with a K, along with a few smaller pocket pairs, and some of his flush draws).
When he raises the flop, I’d expect it to be a 4 or a flush draw most of the time. And some of those flush draws will have the 9s in them. Given he was closing the action in the BB he could plausibly call with an extremely wide range here, perhaps anything from 9s6s upwards, which would give 6 possible combos that give him 9s full by the river. He could also have a 4 with a variety of other cards – possibly 2,3,4,5,6,7,Q,K,A, and maybe even one or two other suited combos – but I think even a conservative appraisal of his range must give him at least 20-30 combos with a 4. Plausible spade draws (excluding the 9s already accounted for) would be things like QJ, Q10, J10, 10-8, 8-7, 8-6, 7-6, 7-5, 7-4, 6-5, 5-3 – that’s 11 combos – although I’d say it’s highly doubtful he raises all of these on the flop.
So to give a rough estimate, I think his flop raising range has approximately twice as many fours as semi-bluffs in it, and about a third of the semi-bluffs have improved to 9s full by the river.
So if we choose to bet the river, it’s to try and induce a bluff from the relatively small part of his range that we beat (but which will never just flat call). And it would only make sense to me to do this if we think we can rule out a large part of his value range based on the checks on the turn and river (meaning that his river check-raising range is sufficiently weighted towards bluffs).
And in fact I don’t think we can rule out much, if any, of his value range, for one key reason – from villain’s point of view, I think hero’s hand looks very much like exactly what it is (TPTK or similar), or a busted flush draw – and I think he would expect both of those hand types to almost always bet the river when checked to. Therefore, it’s likely he checks his strongest hands on the river very often with the intention of raising the expected bet.
In conclusion, I don’t think we can profitably call a river check-raise, and I don’t think we ever just get flat-called by worse here. Therefore, I check.
I only play snap so am even less qualified than those who have said this is above their stakes and level……but here goes…
I was going to say the same as Chris Clough, in terms of the first part of the post. Given the way this hand has played out, I don’t see that we should ever be betting this river to get a call – I just cannot see enough worse hands that call. My first instinct is to put Villain on a flush draw or an outrageous bluff with complete air – betting with the former potentially giving him a free river card.
So in my mind we should only be betting if we WANT to be check raised, in knowledge that Villain is the type to like to run big bluffs. Hero’s play reeks of a hand trying to get to showdown cheaply, so why would Villain check the river if he had a 4 (or a 9?) and risk losing value? To check with a monster he would have to believe that either Hero is willing to either a) make a thin value bet or b) turn his hand into a bluff. Both of which I feel unlikely.
So I think I am saying that I could talk myself into having a reasonable level of confidence in Villain having complete air.
But then I start a levelling war in my head and wonder if Villain has already worked all this out and is sitting on Ks9s.
If I were in Hero’s spot I would check this all day but hey, this is someone else’s money here right!
PS. The best bit about the WSOP being over is that this blog starts filling up with ‘What Would your play’ action which helps me kill some of my working day and potentially stops me hemorrhaging so much money on the felt.
edit – I meant to say
My first instinct [after the check raise on the flop] is to put Villain on a flush draw or an outrageous bluff with complete air – betting with the former potentially giving him a free river card.
It’s not really free if he’s putting a second bet into the pot. Whether he check-calls flop and turn or check-raises flop and then turn checks through, two bets go into the pot for him to see the river. The major difference between the two is that in the first scenario he gives himself a chance to win the pot immediately.
You’re right of course, assuming any turn bet he might face is ~$300 he has essentially paid for the river card. I will stick by my guns though, this flop check-raise feels like a flush draw or ballsy air given the play that follows.
I don’t feel at all qualified either, but I’ll take a stab. Someone chime in and tell me if I’ve gone wrong here.
If we’re betting the river, I don’t think we can do so for value. What worse hands can he have that also want to call here? Think back to the flop c-r. TT+ would likely reraise preflop, a smaller pocket pair is unlikely to c-r on the flop (this Villain as described could think to do so as a bluff – potentially with hands as strong as QQ – but then if he’s not firing another barrel he’s not calling the river), and a worse K is unlikely to fold out a better hand on the flop and risks bloating a multiway pot OOP with a hand that’s easily dominated by Hero’s range.
That leaves strong made hands, semibluffs, and air. AA/KK/AK would reraise preflop, so we’re looking at 4x (or 9sXs I suppose). He could be semibluffing, but any XXss hands can’t call you and the fact that you hold As makes this much less likely. His air can’t call you either. What hands are you targeting for value? It’s so hard to find a hand that check-raises the flop that you beat but which would call a river bet.
So we can’t expect a call with worse and we’re not betting as a bluff (since we’re not folding out better). Bet-folding is a disaster. If we’re betting, we’re hoping to induce a shove with air that we can call. He can plausibly have 4x or 9x while we can’t (KK is in our range though), and he knows this, so by checking we give him a chance to take a shot. Then again, our hand feels face-up after we call the flop – a strong one-pair hand that wants to get to showdown – and we end that story by betting the river and reopening the action, turning a hand with showdown value into a bluffcatcher, so I doubt he would bite.
This is an unusual line with monsters and a common line with air, but I don’t think he shows up with anything in-between and betting only gives us the chance to face a tough decision if we get raised and potentially make a huge mistake. I check, and feel out of my depth when I read Andrew’s analysis.
(If we’re checking behind with AK, do we have a betting range any more? Do we need one?)
Don’t sell yourself short, this is great analysis! As you’ll see tomorrow, it’s quite in line with my own thinking. Even the realization you came to at the end about how difficult it is to have a betting range at all is insightful.
One thing I’ll quibble with is your assumption that Hero can’t have 4x or 9x. This situation underscores the importance of mixing up your UTG opening range with hands like A4s, 98s, and 44, so that you aren’t quite so vulnerable when low cards flop.
Great job!