Unfortunately I was the victim of this one. Honestly I don’t think his river call is too good. If diamonds miss, he can snap-call, but a huge chunk of my range just got there. It’s possible he didn’t think I would value bet a flush, but I absolutely would. The more likely explanation is that he thinks I’m floating with overcards or weaker draws on the flop. I’ve been known to do that, but not often enough that he’s good 1/3 of the time on the river.
PokerStars No-Limit Hold’em, $10.00 BB (2 handed) – PokerStars Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com
Hero (SB) ($1015)
BB ($1495)
Preflop: Hero is SB with 6♠, 7♦
Hero bets $20, BB calls $10
Flop: ($40) 8♦, 5♣, 5♦ (2 players)
BB bets $20, Hero raises to $55, BB raises to $110, Hero calls $55
Turn: ($260) 8♣ (2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $99, BB calls $99
River: ($458) 3♦ (2 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $333, BB calls $333
Total pot: $1124 | Rake: $0.50
Results:
Hero had 6♠, 7♦ (two pair, eights and fives).
BB had J♥, Q♣ (two pair, eights and fives).
Outcome: BB won $1123.50
My first reaction is that the BB is a calling station. Your turn bet seems low. Would a 3/4 bet take the pot? You check/raise/call on flop. He bets/3bets on flop. Your both showing alot of strength, yet you both slow down on turn. Doesn’t this look like a steal from both sides? That said, I don’t know how he makes the call on the turn and river with nothing? At the very least you have a small or middle pair and your bluff is stronger than his QJo. Very strange hand. I don’t run into these type of hands at 25NL unless someone is tilted.
I disagree Keith, I’m pretty sure villain can safely say he doesn’t have a pair by the turn bet given that often hero probably checks for pot control and calls river if villain bets turning the hand into a bluff catcher. It appears like villain assumed hero wouldn’t bet turn with a FD either, but I don’t think turn bet is bad at all given that hero’s range can still be pretty wide by playing it that way. River call is bad because diamonds got there, but maybe there’s some history that wasn’t mentioned that made him to decide to hero call….?
I can’t decide if hero ever plays a full house this way (probably), but lets assume villain thinks hero does not have a full house, not a flush, not a pair, all that’s left is bluffs and he can only beat those that are less than jack high. Weird time to call on the river imo.
I can’t say what Villain would assume, but I certainly would bet a pair on the turn and that’s what I was trying to represent with that bet. With a pair I want to both get value from disbelieving overcard + FD hands and also avoid giving a free card to those hands which have a lot of outs against me.
You’re right that if Villain assumes I don’t have any of the hands that beat him, he should call! 🙂
I can only guess Villain thinks you’re on a draw and is gambling that it’s a straight draw not a flush draw; thus if it’s a straight draw he knows he has you beat. Does anyone think the river bet is too high so that it seems like a bluff?
The problem, as I see it, is that he has no way of knowing which it is. Even if I would play a straight draw this way, I would play a flush draw the same way, and I’d argue there are simply too many combos of the latter for him to call even if he knows I could be bluffing.
As for a big bet seeming like a bluff, why do you assume a large bet is more likely to be a bluff than a value bet? Or more importantly why do you think Villain would assume that?