|
|
 Originally Posted by Fnord
Originally Posted by yeardley
You know, I didn't want to comment on the river play too much for a lot of reasons.
Funny, I think it's the only interesting part of this hand at all.
Fnord, I agree with you. The river is the only part of this hand that is interesting. It's interesting because there isn't a right or wrong play based on the cards, the pot, the bet, etc, as opposed to every other street in this hand. There is more to it than that, and as has already been shown in this thread, there are varying opinions, preferences, styles -- it's open to debate, and I think you can debate it all you want, there are winning players who play this river differently. However, if you have an answer that you think is right, or the most +EV, what is it?
Originally Posted by Fnord
Originally Posted by yeardley
First, to some extent it's a matter of style. Betting again on the river in these situations will add some extra variance to your bankroll...maybe it's something that will work for you and maybe not.
I don't make more sets than anyone else, yet I win a lot more. Maybe it's because I find extra bets with the best hand? What does style have to do with finding some extra value?
To throw in a random reference, Brunson talks about this sort of bet in Super System. It stuck out to me as a limit "bet da riva" kinda guy, but is probably often over-looked.
I haven't read Super System and I don't play limit so I might overlook this too. If you want to explain it further I'm interested to hear.
I feel that the specific actions involved in finding extra value has a lot to do with style, that it can be one of the things that defines one style from another. For example, someone just made a post recently about sLag vs. Tag and how sLag finds extra value in marginal hands that Tag wouldn't touch or would have gotten away from. Going with that example, I feel that betting this river is a bit of a looser play, and check/folding it is a bit of a tighter play.
Originally Posted by Fnord
Originally Posted by yeardley
I see no point in making a bet you can 'get away from' ($4 in your example) because it's bad business.
Is there really much difference between bet/folding the river and raise/folding the flop (or whatever) to "see where you're at". Laying down when you're probably beat is just part of playing poker. I play poker better than my opponents, so I'm inclined to play more streets.
It's sort of challenging to respond to this part because I'm not clear what you're saying. In this example it was the flop and turn play combined that we were trying to help him improve on compared to his previous example hand. Yes, I do believe there is a lot of difference in "seeing where you're at" on different streets, especially before the river. That doesn't mean you can't keep it going on the river but, you're not saying you fire 3 off every single time you're in this situation, are you? There have to be times you choose to ease up on later streets. Maybe not, but for me this will sometimes be one of those times where I find extra value in checking and folding. The 2nd and 3rd sentence don't seem to fit together. Right, there is folding in poker. I don't understand why playing poker better than your opponents defaults to playing more streets. I do understand if you are saying that quality post-flop play allows you to outplay your opponents more often, and sometimes win with 2nd best. But where are you playing at this stake, that you have no calling stations (like villian) in your game who require you to beat them at showdown? I don't think I'm being "results-oriented." It's part of the process that you identify these players and outplay them accordingly. And anyway, in this example, the hero plays every street. Unless you are saying that his river check is not a play.
Originally Posted by Fnord
Originally Posted by yeardley
Let's not forget there are (a couple) other hands, slowplayed, or really stupidly played (in case of 99) that still beat you besides a flush.
...and a whole lot of hands you had destroyed on every post-flop street. You've yet to make a good argument for not having value here. No hand ranges with equity, etc. The only one that's close is he's unknown, but nothing about an unknown $25 NL player in the games I've played in makes me not want to go for extra value.
I have actually made arguments for not having value. Well, for easing up on the river anyway due to a likelihood of not having value. I gave hand ranges. I can't speculate his pot equity on the river without knowing opp. but against unknown, in this hand...maybe I'm pessimistic but I say less than 40% considering the # who saw flop and the progression of the hand. Can you make arguments for having value besides anecdotal statements about the $25 NL games you've played in? If we want to imagine that villian has any two cards, then yes there are a whole lot of hands that hero destroys on the turn and river. Realistically, I think that list of hands is closer to the short list that I included in my previous post. Anything's possible, and opp. is certainly an idiot but I doubt he has K2.
I chose to add some advice here mostly for the 'standard,' non-interesting parts of the hand (and his previously posted hand) that he was having trouble with initially, because, particularly in his first hand I thought I would try to counter some discouraging remarks he received. Then he asked specifically about a river bet in this hand. I gave him my two cents, and I certainly didn't expect or desire to be the only one to give him an opinion on any of this, but I'm not here to hash it out with anyone unless they want to give their 50%. I gave the reasons why I play it the way I said. You've questioned some of what I've said and you might be right. But if you want to tell him why he should commit more or potentially all of his stack on the river in this situation then please do it. I'm serious when I say that maybe he and I will both learn something.
|
How bad was this play II?
Reply With Quote
