A good player is never check-calling this river. Weaker players will, though, and they rarely check better. This guy was new to me but seemed decent and had an aggression factor of 7 over a small sample. Good reason, in other words, to think he’s not a check-caller.
PokerStars No-Limit Hold’em, $10.00 BB (8 handed) – Poker-Stars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com
BB ($1063)
UTG ($1573.75)
UTG+1 ($987)
MP1 ($1365.50)
MP2 ($535.50)
CO ($4925.25)
Hero (Button) ($1042)
SB ($1207)
Preflop: Hero is Button with Q
, K
5 folds, Hero bets $20, SB calls $15, BB calls $10
Flop: ($60) J, 5, 6
(3 players)
SB bets $35, 1 fold, Hero calls $35
Turn: ($130) 7 (2 players)
SB bets $70, Hero calls $70
River: ($270) 6 (2 players)
SB checks, Hero bets $187, SB raises to $1082 (All-In), Hero folds
Total pot: $644 | Rake: $3
Results:
SB didn’t show
Outcome: SB won $641
I seriously considered calling, but as a bluff, this seemed like an expensive alternative to just firing a third barrel on the river. I did wish I’d never bet, though.
I’ll take the bait. Why is good player never check calling here?
I suppose never is a strong word. I guess if he made like a low high flush on the turn, he might check-call the river, but that’s about the only scenario I can envision, and I don’t think there are too many combos of small suited cards in his pre-flop range.
Given that I’ve called two bets, it looks like I have some showdown value. Some of those hands may now feel like they need to bluff with a four-flush out there, but he can’t expect me to bluff all that often, and it’s not a spot where I’m going to value bet thinly. However, I do have a lot of hands in my range that can bluff-catch. Thus, most hands that are only good enough to check-call will be good enough to bet for value, and my calling range is going to be wider than my betting range.
If he has a full house, though, he wants to target the top of my range. All my hands that can pay off big are going to bet the river (particularly if I’m not smart enough to check back my Kd), and then he can check-raise them. So I think the middle part of his range, the part that’s losing to a K-flush, is going to bet. When he checks, a good player is either giving up, check-raising for value, or check-raising as a bluff. Unless I think he’ll do the latter often enough that I can bet to induce, there’s no sense in betting my hand.
I find his turn bet interesting. It’s kind of a meh bet size for a board with both a straight and flush possible. Most players holding A Real Hand when the board starts getting nasty try to wrap up the festivities right there, unless either (a) they hold the nuts themselves, or (b) they’ve got pretty much nothing but a draw or a weak pair. I think a generic aggressive non-nutcase 5/10 player would have bet larger on the turn with a lot of the hands that lose to a big diamond on the river or might already be behind to a straight or flush. The pot’s already thirteen big blinds – why get greedy screwing around with a meh-sized bet on a vulnerable hand?
But that’s probably all the more reason to check back on the river. I think after the blah turn bet, his check on the river is very suspicious. I’m not even sure what I could put him on that he would bluff-check-raise with. Offhand I can’t think of a hand.
Or he could just be a bad player and we’re overanalyzing him.
Hey Foucault, I’ve been following your blog for a bit and had really enjoy your thought process and analysis for the hands you post. This one really has me confused, as you say that a good player is never check-calling, but when you make your flush on the river he checks and you bet anyway. As you claim he’s decent and aggressive, I’m trying to get a handle on the thought process you went through on the river. I hate the thought of making the second nuts and checking it down after chasing it to the river, but if he’s a good player, as you said, and not calling the river bet without the nuts, why bet at all?
Also, how does his high aggression level factor into your analysis of his checkraise on the river? How often, if ever, is he bluffing in this situation?
I realize that your play and thought process is on a much higher level than mine, so I might be missing something obvious, it just seems like your actions contradict what you state at the beginning of the post.
Thanks,
Foolscap
Thanks fools, glad to hear you’ve been enjoying the blog.
You’re right that my actions don’t accord with my commentary; the point of the post was that I felt I’d made a mistake in the hand. Also, notice that the board paired on the river, so a K-high flush is far from the second nuts.
Mostly, the high aggression suggests that he’s not going to check-call. I don’t really know how often he’d do this as a bluff. I’m inclined to say that just firing a third barrel on the river would be the less expensive and more “standard” way to bluff, but I knew next to nothing about how this guy played.
Apparently my keen observation skills are severely lacking early in the morning, I don’t know how I missed the fact that the board had paired, but after re-reading the article with that in mind it does make more sense. Thanks for taking the time to clarify what should have been glaringly obvious to me 🙂
You say you are considering calling, but I have to imagine vs almost anyone a call on this river has to be pretty bad.
So much of your river-betting range is bet/calling if he doesn’t have Ad in his hand he has to figure.
Vs a less good player what’s the thinnest hand you’re betting for value here? Qd?