Only logged-in members can vote!
→ Click here to create a Mob account which gives you access to our forum and all our free bankrolls (no deposit bonuses) → Log in to existing account!
Joined: Nov '09
Location: Australia
Age: 39 (M)
Posts: 715
The circumstaces required to make this play successful.
* You are first to act on the River.
* Yoou believe your opponent was on draw and missed
* Your opponent is aggressive enough to bluff when shown weakness.
If you are first to act on the River and think your opponent is on a draw that missed, a bet will do you no good because your opponent will not call. A check is better, since he may bluff and you can win a bet from him that you would not have won by betting on the River, since he wouldnot have called. This can occur when there are two cards of the same suit on the Flop and your opponent raises. On the Turn he checks after you check, implying he was on a flush draw and is not there yet. On the River if the flush ccard does not come ,you may decide that checking with the intention of calling (or raising) is the best way to win an extra bet,
Example......You are in the big blind and get raised by an aggressive player on the button. You call the raise. The two of you see the flop heads up.
Your hand King Spades, Jack Spade
Flop .........King Hearts, Queen Hearts, 5 clubs
you check raise with your top pair and good kicker, after you check-raise, your opponent reraises.His possible hands are:
* A better hand made with ( AA KK QQ AK KQ 55 )
* A worst hand made (AQ QJ KT )
* A draw ( JT Ahearts, 5 hearts)
Turn 7 diamonds
You check. Your opponent checks. It appears that he was on a draw, or has a worse made hand, such as AQ or QJ. Here is what can happen when a blank comes on the River, with the possible hands your opponent could have.
!. He has a better hand . (as shown above) If a heart does not come on the River,so there is no possible flush, a bet by you is usually followed by a raise. If you check and call his bet, you lose the minimum. If you bet, you lose 1 or 2 bets (depending on whether you called a raise) If you check with the intention of calling, you lose 1 bet.
2. He has a worse hand (shown above) If he checked on the Turn, he is worried that you have a better hand.Ifyou bet on the River, he calls and you win 1 bet.Either way you have a chance of winning 1 bet.
3. He has a busted draw (shown above) If you bet, he folds since he has no pair. If you check, he may bet because your weakness may have given him the hope that he can win the pot with a bluff bet on the River. If you bet, you win 0 bets. If you check with the intention of calling, you have a chance of winning 1 bet.
In all three cases, checking and calling is superior or equivalent to betting. You are not completely sure what you are up against- a better hand, a worse made hand or a draw- but checking and callingis the dominant strategy in all three cases.
This only works well against some opponents.A passive opponent is less likely to bluff on the River. A calling ststion will call on the River with hands he would not bet, such as a split pair of 5's. Consider the aggressiveness of your opponent when making this type of play. The more aggressive your opponent, the more you should try to induce a bluff out of him. The more passivehe is, themore you should bet and the less you should try to induce a bluff.
Example with EV
Asssume you are sure you have the best hand. For example you have the top set and there are no possible straights or flushes 0n the board. You are heads-up on the River and you are first to act. You estimate that your opponent has a missed draw and probably will not call if you bet. You estimate his calling percentage to be 10%. However, you know he is a sharp player. If you check, there is a chance that he may bet, hoping to steal the pot. You estimate the chance of him betting if you check to be 20 %. Since you are sure you have the best hand: if he bets you will raise, at which he will probably fold.
If your perception of the situation is correct and these probabilities are right, then checkand try to induce a bluff. In practice instead of plugging numbers into an equatiion, you often have to rely on your "feel" for your opponent and the situation.
Joined: Jan '09
Location: New Zealand
Age: 38 (M)
Posts: 463
It's a good strategy strategy, though i find it less profitable on the lower stakes, since people are more unpredictable there. But it all comes down to what type of opponent you're up against.
Joined: Nov '09
Location: Australia
Age: 39 (M)
Posts: 715
Posted by Doomsday_vic: It's a good strategy strategy, though i find it less profitable on the lower stakes, since people are more unpredictable there. But it all comes down to what type of opponent you're up against.
exazatcly
------------
Posted by Doomsday_vic: It's a good strategy strategy, though i find it less profitable on the lower stakes, since people are more unpredictable there. But it all comes down to what type of opponent you're up against.
Joined: Sep '09
Location: France
Age: 45 (M)
Posts: 301
I didnt find this interesting to me, because its kind of basic strategy and i allready know it, its kinda natural move to me. But yes, for begginers it can be really interesting
Good read & defintley agree that in certain spots it can be a great way to get some extra value from a really aggressive player, who isn't going to be calling your river bet with a busted FD, but will keep barrelling at it. Ofcourse, your read needs to be strong, he needs to have a high AFwhere it can be really +EV move. At the stakes I play at though (NL10,NL25) it's just generally better to value bet all 3 streets, more often then not monsters will get paid off.
Copy paste? It's pretty standard play (checkcall on river is not for inducing bluffs, checkraise is though) and also written for limit holdem, inducing bluffs on the river is way more profitable while playing nl holdem. Bluffing on the river at limit holdem (esp. lower stakes) is a nono, main reason=potodds, only idiots do it and those guys will pay you off anyway. Think about all the (double) bets you're not winning by checking on the river and giving the chance to oppo. to check for showdown with worse hand but a hand he would have paid for, maybe just to see what you have or maybe if there's a (slight) chance he has the best hand. Then your whole play becomes ev---, think about it.
In conclusion: terrible read, terrible topic, just close this topic and ban the OP, have a nice weekend all.
Joined: Aug '08
Location: Canada
Age: 60 (F)
Posts: 2558
Posted by $k:
Posted by Doomsday_vic: It's a good strategy strategy, though i find it less profitable on the lower stakes, since people are more unpredictable there. But it all comes down to what type of opponent you're up against.
exazatcly
------------
Posted by Doomsday_vic: It's a good strategy strategy, though i find it less profitable on the lower stakes, since people are more unpredictable there. But it all comes down to what type of opponent you're up against.
exazatcly
call me crazy but $k you really remind me of someone
Joined: Mar '08
Location: United Kingdom
Age: 46 (M)
Posts: 6714
Posted by dlkiv:
Posted by $k:
Posted by Doomsday_vic: It's a good strategy strategy, though i find it less profitable on the lower stakes, since people are more unpredictable there. But it all comes down to what type of opponent you're up against.
exazatcly
------------
Posted by Doomsday_vic: It's a good strategy strategy, though i find it less profitable on the lower stakes, since people are more unpredictable there. But it all comes down to what type of opponent you're up against.
exazatcly
call me crazy but $k you really remind me of someone
Joined: Nov '09
Location: Australia
Age: 39 (M)
Posts: 715
Posted by B1gfoot:
Posted by dlkiv:
Posted by $k:
Posted by Doomsday_vic: It's a good strategy strategy, though i find it less profitable on the lower stakes, since people are more unpredictable there. But it all comes down to what type of opponent you're up against.
exazatcly
------------
Posted by Doomsday_vic: It's a good strategy strategy, though i find it less profitable on the lower stakes, since people are more unpredictable there. But it all comes down to what type of opponent you're up against.
exazatcly
call me crazy but $k you really remind me of someone
Joined: May '09
Location: Argentina
Age: 45 (M)
Posts: 71
The correct thing to do is too evaluate what his actions meant at the moment of playing meant If you suspect he has good cards at first but became worst than yours and that matches the actions he did (including the bluff posibilities) then you must take into account previously hands played with him in order to act against what his cards might be.
Joined: Aug '08
Location: Canada
Age: 60 (F)
Posts: 2558
Posted by $k:
Posted by B1gfoot:
Posted by dlkiv:
Posted by $k:
Posted by Doomsday_vic: It's a good strategy strategy, though i find it less profitable on the lower stakes, since people are more unpredictable there. But it all comes down to what type of opponent you're up against.
exazatcly
------------
Posted by Doomsday_vic: It's a good strategy strategy, though i find it less profitable on the lower stakes, since people are more unpredictable there. But it all comes down to what type of opponent you're up against.
exazatcly
call me crazy but $k you really remind me of someone
from me 
