10/20 QQ on a four flushed

I actually played this hand with a fish but in that case it's uninteresting so please assume villian is a pretty good thinking player. I've been pretty tight so far and we have no relevant history.

10/20 Effective stacks $3000

I open to $80 on the button with Q Q Villian repops to $240 from the BB. I call.

Flop: 2 7 J ($490)
He leads for $300, I call.

Turn: A ($1100)
He leads for $700, I call.

River: 5 ($2500)
check, and I check behind (with 1.7k left to bet)


Comments on all streets appreciated. Especially the turn and river.
Also from the villians perspective, I think he should check the river with the Kd more often then not. Yes or no?

I like it, I don't think you're getting called by 10D or less.

I must be missing something

You called the turn when the 4 flush hit

so from villain's perspective, you're not scared of the flush

If he's not betting the river with Kd and these stacks he's crazy since you'll check behind so much with a hand like 10d10x but will be hard pressed (esp if you re a station) to fold to a riverbet

edit : in assuming the frequency of Kd going for river check-raise, I think it's crucial to know just how good villain thinks YOU are. This is the key element. If he thinks you're mediocre he'll ALWAYS value-bet Kd but if he thinks you're very aware and capable of thin value-bets checking is sexier.

He;s still not going to call with anything that Irish beats though.

Turn looks good, but I bet/push river all day (you could bet something like 700 instead of all in). From his perspective, how often are you calling on THAT turn card just to bluff a blank river? Almost never, which is why checking the Kd makes no sense here. If he knew you had Qd then checking is good but really that is the only hand (imo) in which checking > betting. Another hand that might makes sense for you is a cautiously played AA that is now bluffing, but if I were villain I'd expect AA to check behind on the river a lot more often than bluff.

i dont think the Jd or Td gets to the river like this so i dont think theres value in betting.

Checking behind makes no sense. You have the second nuts and he checked to you on the river. Bet it and hope he calls with his obviously inferior hand. If he goes all-in (which I highly doubt he will), you fold. I don't understand requiring the nuts to bet here.

If I push, he calls everytime with the nuts, and very little with anything I can beat. Therefore, betting could be -EV.

If a bet has zero expectation why bet?

If villian has Kd and is decent he knows a value bet isn't getting called. Holding the Kd, I think checking to induce a bluff would have a higher expectation than value betting. A weak lead as a "blocking" bet might even be more +EV as it has the same potential to induce bluff but might also squeeze a little value out of a lower flush that would you look you up for the cheap price, but would otherwise rather check behind.

Wonder why noone asked it yet.. but since when are you playing 10/20? I thought you were at 2/4 and 3/6, quite a leap.

Originally Posted by jackvance

Wonder why noone asked it yet.. but since when are you playing 10/20? I thought you were at 2/4 and 3/6, quite a leap.

Since I have bankroll and an edge obv.

LOL @ betting the second nuts having negative expectation.

Is your opponent really that smart, and are you really that nitty?

Originally Posted by dsaxton

LOL @ betting the second nuts having negative expectation.

Sure if you put it that way out of context, but its a nasty nasty board where you are probably are not getting called by a worse hand, thus the bet has no expectation.

Originally Posted by dsaxton

LOL @ betting the second nuts having negative expectation.

Is your opponent really that smart, and are you really that nitty?

When most of the time the only hand that calls has us beat, and all others fold, then yeah it has to be have a negative expectation, and I don't think our op has to be that smart to fold a hand that we beat here..

Villain would have to be retarded to check this river with the Kd. So IMO easy value bet. I'd bet like $1k, fold to a push (never will be a bluff, let alone he'll never c/r this river probably).

comon

lots of "good players" at high stakes are capable making hero calls in any heads-up pot. Your theoretical situation stated that villain is good, thinking player. If you guys had any sort of history the responses would definitely be more relevant.

If, for any reason, villain thinks you're capable of calling turn to bluff river, you'll get called by 10d or worse at least some % of the time. So saying that betting has no +ev expectation is crazy imo.

Originally Posted by phantom_lord

When most of the time the only hand that calls has us beat, and all others fold, then yeah it has to be have a negative expectation, and I don't think our op has to be that smart to fold a hand that we beat here..

An equally important fact is how often his hand is good to begin with. Think of this, if his opponent flips over a T high flush, but will only call a bet 0.000001% of the time without the K of diamonds, should we just check behind because he probably won't call a bet with a worse hand anyways? This is what your reasoning suggests.

His hand is almost always the best hand here, and he has no reason to think his opponent is incapable of calling with something worse, so he should bet. Pretty simple.

Originally Posted by ihategnomes

If a bet has zero expectation why bet?

This is a concept that i really havent grasped. if you have what you believe to be the best hand in this situation, why wouldnt you bet it. how can you reasonably say that a bet has zero expectation. I mean if villain call 1/100 then it is a +EV play, isnt it? And is it wrong here to bet and take down the pot without a showdown?

Originally Posted by Bode-ist

Originally Posted by ihategnomes

If a bet has zero expectation why bet?

This is a concept that i really havent grasped. if you have what you believe to be the best hand in this situation, why wouldnt you bet it. how can you reasonably say that a bet has zero expectation. I mean if villain call 1/100 then it is a +EV play, isnt it? And is it wrong here to bet and take down the pot without a showdown?

You're assuming every time the villian calls we beat him.

Originally Posted by Galapogos

Originally Posted by Bode-ist

Originally Posted by ihategnomes

If a bet has zero expectation why bet?

This is a concept that i really havent grasped. if you have what you believe to be the best hand in this situation, why wouldnt you bet it. how can you reasonably say that a bet has zero expectation. I mean if villain call 1/100 then it is a +EV play, isnt it? And is it wrong here to bet and take down the pot without a showdown?

You're assuming every time the villian calls we beat him.

obv. 1/100 is an exageration. I also stated "if you have what you believe to be the best hand"

so if you believe your hand is good, why would you want to check behind on the river? if you dont get a call, then oh well, you win without a showdown. someone please explain if im off base here.

Ok so we've discussed this for a while. Really I think the major problem with this thread is that I gave a bad example of what I'm trying to illustrate. As bdawg said I'm not calling on that turn card with the intention of bluffing the river enough to make checking the Kd a good idea for him.

So, what happens if we switch the turn and river around? Make the turn be the 5 and the river the T . Now, when checked to, is it better for us to check or bet? And, assumong he holds the Ad, is hit better (for him) if he bets or checks?

Originally Posted by Galapogos

Originally Posted by Bode-ist

Originally Posted by ihategnomes

If a bet has zero expectation why bet?

This is a concept that i really havent grasped. if you have what you believe to be the best hand in this situation, why wouldnt you bet it. how can you reasonably say that a bet has zero expectation. I mean if villain call 1/100 then it is a +EV play, isnt it? And is it wrong here to bet and take down the pot without a showdown?

You're assuming every time the villian calls we beat him.

If villain just calls the river, assuming he isn't a retard, we win. DUCY?

Originally Posted by Irisheyes

So, what happens if we switch the turn and river around? Make the turn be the 5 and the river the T . Now, when checked to, is it better for us to check or bet? And, assumong he holds the Ad, is hit better (for him) if he bets or checks?

Yes, you should bet the second nut flush if he checks to you on the river.

Originally Posted by dsaxton

Originally Posted by Irisheyes

So, what happens if we switch the turn and river around? Make the turn be the 5 and the river the T . Now, when checked to, is it better for us to check or bet? And, assumong he holds the Ad, is hit better (for him) if he bets or checks?

Yes, you should bet the second nut flush if he checks to you on the river.

and by implication, it is better for us to check the nut flush on the river when OOP.

So you're saying it's always correct to c/raise any river when we have the nuts if there's a chance our opponent has 2nd/3rd nuts and will be hard-pressed to fold to a c/raise...

won't most good players just pitch the 2nd/3rd nuts most of the time though unless we pull this move as a bluff from time to time? So aren't we losing a lot from big juicy value bets on river w the nuts when villain has 4th-nth nuts and will simply check behind?

Seems like doing this without knowing that villain is mediocre (incapable of folding very strong hands) or that we have a history of bluff/raising the river is very very far from optimal.

No I'm saying that if we hold the nuts here (we are villian), it is better to check because there is more chance that the in position player will push bluff or value push then that he will call a river open push with the second or third nuts.