What do you do on the river?

[Bo G]

***** Hand History for Game 2576675835 *****
$25 NL Texas Hold'em - Monday, August 22, 01:37:07 EDT 2005
Table Table 55075 (6 max) (No DP) (Real Money)
Seat 1 is the button
Total number of players : 5
Seat 2: Breezin ( $25.46 )
Seat 3: bgilic ( $27.45 )
Seat 4: atexpest2 ( $3.80 )
Seat 6: shamrock7770 ( $40.45 )
Seat 1: Negreanu999 ( $24.65 )
Breezin posts small blind [$0.10].
bgilic posts big blind [$0.25].
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to bgilic [ 9d 8d ]
atexpest2 calls [$0.25].
shamrock7770 calls [$0.25].
Negreanu999 folds.
Breezin calls [$0.15].
bgilic checks.
** Dealing Flop ** [ 8c, 8h, 5h ]
Breezin checks.
bgilic bets [$1].
atexpest2 folds.
shamrock7770 calls [$1].
Breezin folds.
** Dealing Turn ** [ As ]
bgilic bets [$2].
shamrock7770 calls [$2].
** Dealing River ** [ 6h ]
bgilic checks.
shamrock7770 bets [$4].
bgilic folds.
shamrock7770 does not show cards.
shamrock7770 wins $10.65

[PokerPatNEU]

I have to say i hate this situation because you really feel that he has a flush, and if he shows down a flush and you lose, you say "dammit i knew it" and lost yourself another bet on the river...But if you think about the math of your expected pay off compared to the fraction of the time he actualy has the flush, i think the right move is to bet.

I lead out 3$ or so on the river. Thats 3$ into a 7$~ or so pot, 10$ if he calls. A little better than 3:1 if he calls, and a tiny bit of folding equity. If he made a flush, you're getting raised and can get away from it, at least you know you folded to a better hand. Checking gives him free reign to take the pot down with nothing. I think more than 25% of the hands in his range of hands that play this way are two non-hearts. And when you're getting 3:1 by betting 3$ on the river, you only need him to not have a flush 1/4th of the time or more.

[Drewbie]

I would have called that.
That bets reeks of TPGK-TPTK or something like that.
I dont think 7-9 is a real possibility, but at this level you never know.
The biggest threat is obviously the flush, but he was calling a 1/2 pot sized bet with a ~80-20 draw.
That, I think is a -ev play.
I think you have to call this

[DaHorror]

Sheez at these limits people will pay pot sized bets to chase their flush to the river.
It looks suspicious...looks just as much like he has 56 as it does the flush - still I'm usually folding here and giving them credit for the flush, depending on my reads on the person...I may pay them off once to confirm my read and get info on them.

[Rondavu]

Whether he has a flush or not is irrelevant. You have to continue by betting $2 on the river. If he raises you fold. A check is fear. Fear is the spawn of opportunity. It's better you know now before you get to stakes where players will represent that flush all day long when you cry check the river.

[Drewbie]

Whether he has a flush or not is irrelevant. You have to continue by betting $2 on the river. If he raises you fold. A check is fear. Fear is the spawn of opportunity. It's better you know now before you get to stakes where players will represent that flush all day long when you cry check the river.

Very good point.
You can not check the river here as you are opening the door wide to get scared out of the pot.
You shouldnt have put yourself in the position you were in.
By leading out on the river, you would have found out right away whether you were beat or not

[DaHorror]

Ok so by betting $2 on the river the higher stakes folks still won't reraise heavy to represent the flush?
I understand the concept of leading out here, and since I don't play at higher stakes I wouldn't know how those play so I'm just curious.
Seems like if they're going to bluff you out of the pot they'll do it whether you weak bet or check.

[PokerPatNEU]

I think 2$ still looks a little weak, thats what he bet on the turn. Increasing your bet size relative to the pot is the only way to show your opponents "I have a hand, i am value betting it, call me if you want me to show it to you and take your money." 2$ is less EV than 3$ i think because it leaves the door wider open for an over the top bluff. While some players will still try and bluff the flop if you lead 3$ into the river, i think more often you will only see the actual made flush raise. If someone comes over the top of 2$ for another 6$...It's harder to determine if it's a bluff or the real deal.

[Drewbie]

and if he just calls your 2$,
you've probably got him.

[PokerPatNEU]

and if he just calls your 2$,
you've probably got him.

Lol, good point. Plus in about two seconds the cards are gonna be face up so you won't really need to worry about the "probably" .

[Rondavu]

Ok so by betting $2 on the river the higher stakes folks still won't reraise heavy to represent the flush?
I understand the concept of leading out here, and since I don't play at higher stakes I wouldn't know how those play so I'm just curious.
Seems like if they're going to bluff you out of the pot they'll do it whether you weak bet or check.

It would seem that way wouldn't it? Here's the key... By betting $2 you let the potential bluffer know that you have something you might pay a flush off with, therefore they won't bluff out of fear of being called by the strong crier who wants a showdown regardless. Also, it puts a little notion in their mind that YOU may have the flush yourself and are betting for value. To answer your question no the higher stakes player (or middle stakes as I am) is not going to bluff you as often when you continue betting. It will certainly happen here and there, but a check encourages the action much more significantly.

[EricE]

At my stakes he may or may not have the flush but I am going to find out unless he bets it big. A small bet like that is not going to put me off my set because 3 card flushes don’t hit often enough to make me scared. He very well could be value betting his TPTK because he things he has you beat.