Betting the River/On Tilt
Chuck Dudek
Chuck Dudek
Stephen Jacobs
"Chuck Dudek" <nob...@zilch.com> wrote in message news:Cv3Q7.441$ih2....@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net......
Guy McCusker
how to play!
Here's the situation: our hero is playing 7-stud, has trip aces on board
and has been betting all the way. It is heads up at the river, and our
hero has just got the trips.
There is only one thing to do here. Check. And consider calling if he
bets.
Let's look at the possibilities if you bet:
- you bet and are called. You must lose a bet.
- you bet and are raised. You probably ought to fold now! You lose a
bet. (If you are against very tricky opponents who might raise as a
bluff, find another game.)
- you bet and he passes. You had the best hand all along, and you win
nothing extra.
So, if you're winning, betting gains you nothing; if you are losing,
betting loses you a bet.
Now let's look at what happens if you check and call.
- if you're losing and he bets, you lose a bet.
- if you're losing and he checks, you lose nothing.
- if you're winning and he bets, you win a bet.
- if you're winning and he checks behind you, you win nothing, just
as you would have done by betting.
So if you're winning, you might win a bet. If you're losing, you might
not lose a bet. Both of these are better than what you get by
betting.
This situation, heads up at the river, is worlds apart from the
situation earlier in the hand where you want to bet on every street to
get money out of the drawing hands against you. It is especially clear
cut when your hand is entirely exposed: there is no point betting
because you cannot be called by a hand you can beat.
Guy.
Chuck Dudek
this is throwing up the surrender flag and there is absolutely no way I
could have won unless the other guy couldn't beat trips. Let's suppose the
bad guy had a flush or straight instead of a full house. If I checked, he
would certainly have bet. By betting, true it cost me one bet extra, but if
he had only a straight or flush, it might have made him think twice before
calling. Is that worth one big bet? I don't know and the value of that
extra bet is hard to quantify, but I'm pretty sure the pot odds were like
10:1. Another way to look at it is at that point I was pretty certain to
lose the pot if I checked. I might have won by betting if his holding
wasn't as good as it turned out to be and he chickened out. Not likely, but
stranger things have happened.
--
Chuck Dudek
"Guy McCusker" <gu...@cogs.susx.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:u3w7krz...@hanover.crn.cogs.susx.ac.uk...
Chuck Dudek
I learned this a long time ago, but for some reason I keep forgetting.
Tomorrow's another day.
--
Chuck Dudek
"Richard Cavell" <richar...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:3c10...@news.comindico.com.au...<snip>
When it's not your day, go home.
Peg Smith
you filled, and will be leery of betting if he did.
Peg
John Herbst
My analysis of your 7CS play is below. Good luck with the tilt.
"Chuck Dudek" <nob...@zilch.com> wrote
> Anyway, we get to the last card and I bet, fully
> expecting him to fold, but he calls. It turns out this guy was calling
> my trip aces with two small pairs (like 5544) and he fills on 7th street
> while I don't improve. So another guy proceeds to berate me because I
> bet on the last card. I suppose I should have checked, but then my
> opponent would *know* I had nothing but trip aces. If my opponent bet,
> I would have called anyway and if he had raised I probably would have
> folded, so it didn't really cost me more than one bet. With three cards
> unexposed, the odds of me having aces full were pretty good, so why
> would I give a straight or flush a free shot at me? The more I think
> about it, I don't think this was a big mistake (just one big bet) if it
> was a mistake at all. What do you all think?
IMHO, betting the river is a mistake, but not a big one. As you point
out, you do just as well to check-call, and the pot is too big to
check-fold. You are absolutely right that you should not give people
free shots at you, but I think there is a better way to get your
unpredictability. First the math:
The only time betting does better than check-calling is if you can
make a made hand fold. If you fake an "I've got a monster" tell as
you bet against a very strong reader, the play could work, but not too
often.
Check-calling does better than betting when:
1: your opponent bluffs when you check
2: your opponent raises when you bet (for value or to bluff, since you
plan to fold)
In your situation, mathematically, you've got a clear check-call.
But you are worried that your opponent will know you are weak. Forget
the fact that he just called 3 bets on a draw against AAA. Your
opponent is now in the position to make YOU make a mistake. If he
bluffs just occasionally, you know you have to pay off his hand when
he makes it. You bet in order to stop a bluff. The only problem is
that it costs you just as much to stop the bluff as it would to just
pay him off.
A better strategy would be to sometimes check-raise those times when
you make a full house. How often is based primarily on how aggressive
your opponent plays against you. The sting will last a long time, and
will make him think twice the next time you check the river. Don't
forget the subtle head shake and disappointed grimace.
If you incorporate the check-raise into your arsenal, you've got all
the deception you'll need. I might even go so far as to show my boat
if my opponent surrenders the pot to my board. Let them know you're
tricky and they'll back off.
> So I changed tables and had more of the same. I went on full tilt and
> lost all of my money. Frankly, I was almost trying to get rid of it
> with the idea of never playing again. Now that it's a new day, I regret
> that I didn't just quit and save my money for another day. I hate
> stupidity, especially my own, but I think the stupid part was not
> betting my aces, it was going on tilt.
Tilt happens. Especially after you bet your full house on the river
and some jerk with 3 aces showing was SLOWPLAYING! ;)
All you can do is try to stay in control.
John Herbst
(nposts at yahoo dot com)
Chuck Dudek
filled a small boat and you were staring at three bullets that checked,
would you check or bet? What if you had a flush? I think I would check in
both cases, fearing a check-raise. Those three bullets are pretty
intimidating.
--
Chuck Dudek
"John Herbst" <npo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7418c078.01120...@posting.google.com...
TadPerry01
>
>Thanks, John. Now let me ask you, if you were the other guy, you just
>filled a small boat and you were staring at three bullets that checked,
>would you check or bet? What if you had a flush? I think I would check in
>both cases, fearing a check-raise. Those three bullets are pretty
>intimidating.
I think this hand (trip aces on board versus a smaller fullhouse at the river
in 7stud) is a perfect example of strategy advice I keep trying recommend.
Namely, if you think you can get called by a losing hand on the river, BET. If
the only hand that can call would beat you, CHECK.
This is not the second case. Hands that can lose are also among the
possibilities if called.
I wish I could organize my thoughts just right to show the full range of what I
think and why I think it, and I'll try to do that, so bear with me.
Because you don't ALWAYS bet the river when checked to with my advice, this is
LESS likely to be a check raise. Let's start with that.
Next, if you are in fact check raised, one of my favorite things about 7stud in
particular kicks in: opponents sometimes feel that they just HAVE to pretend.
So you can call and win a high enough fraction of the time that pot odds
justify a call in most cases. In fact, it happens all the time. So that's not
as big a worry as you think.
As far as the aces go, their presence in the open can be viewed as scary OR
fortunate. This person HAS to police the pot. You WILL be called even if three
aces is all he/she has and it's no good. That's good news, not bad news.
Now, in the discussion below, there is the presumption that checking the three
aces would let the opponent KNOW that the hand was not aces full.
Let's look at playing the three aces showing from the perspective of advice I
tend to give: DON'T DO ANYTHING BY A RECIPE. THERE IS NO ALWAYS. THERE IS NO
NEVER.
Usually, attempts to check raise on the river are wrong. If you have the
winning hand, or what figures to be (and aces full would count) you have a
chance to put money in and usually you shouldn't miss that opportunity.
However, if you have a strong tendency to check when not full, but a
willingness to check SOMETIMES when you ARE full, then this can really help
your cause over the long run because there is no knowing for sure by opponents
what to do with someone playing like you.
Add in a willingness to occasionally bet the three aces (when not full) into
boards you might not usually do that and I feel it becomes YOU in the driver's
seat.
Guy McCusker
> Guy, I agree with your logic except for one thing. Checking in a case like
> this is throwing up the surrender flag and there is absolutely no way I
> could have won unless the other guy couldn't beat trips.
Suppose your opponent can beat trips. You have put him on a draw all
along, so if he can beat trips, that means he hit his draw.
If your opponent is foolish enough to call on 6th street on a draw,
hit his draw on the river, and then fold when you bet as you have been
doing from the start, then of course you should bet.
But honestly, have you ever played against someone like that?
I really think it's clear cut that if he can beat the trips he will
call or perhaps raise. There is no way you can get him to put down a
hand that beats AAA in my opinion.
> Another way to look at it is at that point I was pretty certain to
> lose the pot if I checked.
Huh? What if you have the best hand? If he has been drawing, and he
didn't get there on 6th street, presumably you were favourite to be
ahead at the river.
> Let's suppose the bad guy had a flush or straight instead of a full
> house. If I checked, he would certainly have bet.
Even better! Now if you do fill up, you can check-raise. If you had
bet, he would likely just call with those hands, and you win one
bet. This way you have the chance to win two bets.
Guy.
TadPerry01
>"Chuck Dudek" <nob...@zilch.com> writes:
>
>> Guy, I agree with your logic except for one thing. Checking in a case like
>> this is throwing up the surrender flag and there is absolutely no way I
>> could have won unless the other guy couldn't beat trips.
>
>Suppose your opponent can beat trips. You have put him on a draw all
>along, so if he can beat trips, that means he hit his draw.
>
>If your opponent is foolish enough to call on 6th street on a draw,
>hit his draw on the river, and then fold when you bet as you have been
>doing from the start, then of course you should bet.
>
>But honestly, have you ever played against someone like that?
>
>I really think it's clear cut that if he can beat the trips he will
>call or perhaps raise. There is no way you can get him to put down a
>hand that beats AAA in my opinion.
Exactly. That is the essence of my "Do not bet a hand that can only be called
by a better hand" advice. This is a CLEAR example of that. Checking can induce
a losing hand to bet, but betting isn't going to get a losing hand to call, or
usually get a winning hand to fold either.
You might get lucky and get a losing hand to RAISE if you bet. That's about the
only mistake that betting induces given you have a standard image. However, the
chance of that goes way down if you only bet your boat and always check your
trips because some players WILL notice that your bets are very strong if you
strictly follow that advice.
And that's the main reason that "never" and "always" should not be applied
here.
Your oppenents who pay attention will know when you do and when you do not have
the boat if you never vary the play. I'll agree with the idea that 90% of
people you play with are not fully aware of such things and NOT thinking.
Rather, they play by a formula, and the formula has a very strong tendency to
call.
Even so, in this case, they know you have AT LEAST three aces. The only choice
a losing hand has is to raise (and pray you leave) or fold. So you don't want
opponents knowing your hand in absolute terms because if you follow this logic
to the point that you NEVER bet without the boat and ALWAYS bet with the boat
then, yes, you will find cases where a person has hit their draw AND folds, and
slowly, over time, the only times you are being forced to pay off is when you
lose.
Your advice cannot truly be "the optimum play" if the end result is that more
money only ever goes in when you're no good, and that leads to the "Why are my
pots so small?" lament.
That can be avoided, but you have to see the wisdom of varying away from what
appears in the general case to be "optimum" play, because getting away from it
occasionally makes it so much more valuable the times you follow it.
Note the following to see this: A player who always bets the AAA board
regardless of whether or not he/she is full, will get raised by losing hands
(pure bluffs) sometimes, even when not full. This "action" will evaporate over
time for a person who's bets are very strong in opponent eyes. (This person
will wonder why they always win the small pots, but it's the folds in response
to the strong strategy that cause this.)
A person who usually doesn't, but sometimes does, bet AAA unimproved can have
the best of both worlds if selective about when to reverse the tendency.
Now what do you suppose the right frequency for reversing your standard advice
might be? What induces some mistakes?
tvp
Chuck Dudek
--
Chuck Dudek
"TadPerry01" <tadpe...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20011209095317...@mb-df.aol.com...
Chuck Dudek
pair and filled on 7th. The point is I did not fill, so how can I make the
best of the situation assuming that he had me beat? As Sklansky suggests to
analyze this kind of situation, if I KNEW what his hand was and he had me,
what would be my best action? I say it was bet, risking one bet to get a
chance of winning, albeit a small chance, versus a certain loss. If he bet
I would lose whether I called or not. If we both checked I would lose.
--
Chuck Dudek
"Guy McCusker" <gu...@cogs.susx.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:u3wk7vv...@hanover.crn.cogs.susx.ac.uk...
John Herbst
against an overly tricky player or one who checks blind. The problem
player is the one who check-raises "sometimes" (maybe 25-35% of the
times he fills). Now, if I bet I'll win 1 bet most of the time but
will lose 2 just often enough to make me fearful.
You must think that your opponent will bet sometimes to have bet into
him with just AAA, right? It's not as scary after the opponent
checks, because if he filled he should have bet. You give too much
away if you always check.
BTW, I would also "occasionally" throw a straight away if AAA
check-raises, but I'd almost never throw a flush or better.
John Herbst
"Chuck Dudek" <nob...@zilch.com> wrote
> Thanks, John. Now let me ask you, if you were the other guy, you just
> filled a small boat and you were staring at three bullets that checked,
> would you check or bet? What if you had a flush? I think I would check in
> both cases, fearing a check-raise. Those three bullets are pretty
> intimidating.
> "John Herbst" <npo...@yahoo.com> wrote
Joe Long
wrote:
>Guy, I agree with your logic except for one thing. Checking in a case like
>this is throwing up the surrender flag and there is absolutely no way I
>could have won unless the other guy couldn't beat trips. Let's suppose the
>bad guy had a flush or straight instead of a full house. If I checked, he
>would certainly have bet. By betting, true it cost me one bet extra, but if
>he had only a straight or flush, it might have made him think twice before
>calling.
Really? You described him as wild, and he called you all the way to
the river with your trip aces showing. He's going to fold a made
straight or flush on the river just because you bet again? Hardly.
Guy's analysis was right. You have virtually nothing to gain by
betting, but stand to lose up to two bets if you bet (are you *really*
going to fold if he raises -- knowing he could have missed his draw
and be trying to buy the pot?).
Joe Long
wrote:
>Thanks, John. Now let me ask you, if you were the other guy, you just
>filled a small boat and you were staring at three bullets that checked,
>would you check or bet? What if you had a flush? I think I would check in
>both cases, fearing a check-raise. Those three bullets are pretty
>intimidating.
You said yourself that if you checked your opponent would probably
bet. Most players will not check Aces full heads-up, especially with
all three Aces showing, for the very reason you mention -- too much
chance of missing a bet instead of getting a chance to raise -- so he
doesn't really have to worry much about a check-raise. So we see
again, if he doesn't have you beat and you check, you lose nothing (I
fold to a bet), and if I do have you beat there's no way I'm going to
fold a hand that can beat the trip Aces for one bet, so you lose a
bet. Nothing to gain, a bet to lose.
The only time a bet would gain for you would be against a player who
is so timid that he would fold a straight, flush or small boat to
three Aces showing heads-up -- and a player that timid would have
folded long before. Think about it: why would he keep calling bets
drawing to a straight or flush if he was going to fold after he made
it?
Chuck Dudek
again, I'll check.
--
Chuck Dudek
"Joe Long" <s...@my.sig> wrote in message
news:3c191904...@news.iccx.net...<snip>
Chuck Dudek
see if your opponent was trying to steal it?
--
Chuck Dudek
"Joe Long" <s...@my.sig> wrote in message
news:3c1a1c91...@news.iccx.net...<snip>
Headhunter
> With either hand, I would bet against a predictable player and check
> against an overly tricky player or one who checks blind. The problem
> player is the one who check-raises "sometimes" (maybe 25-35% of the
> times he fills). Now, if I bet I'll win 1 bet most of the time but
> will lose 2 just often enough to make me fearful.
>
> You must think that your opponent will bet sometimes to have bet into
> him with just AAA, right? It's not as scary after the opponent
> checks, because if he filled he should have bet. You give too much
> away if you always check.
>
> BTW, I would also "occasionally" throw a straight away if AAA
> check-raises, but I'd almost never throw a flush or better.
>
>
John,
versus AAA on board, why would you "occasionally" throw away a
straight, yet call the flush or better? (I assume smaller boat but not
qads. Quads is obvious). Your opponent either has AAA or the biggest
boat. Heads up, a straight, flush or smaller boat are essentially of
equal hand ranking. That is to say they all beat the AAA and all lose
to the bigger boat. I would think that how you play one (str8, flush
or boat) would be how you play all of them.
John Herbst
> John,
> versus AAA on board, why would you "occasionally" throw away a
> straight, yet call the flush or better? (I assume smaller boat but not
> qads. Quads is obvious). Your opponent either has AAA or the biggest
> boat. Heads up, a straight, flush or smaller boat are essentially of
> equal hand ranking. That is to say they all beat the AAA and all lose
> to the bigger boat. I would think that how you play one (str8, flush
> or boat) would be how you play all of them.
It's about randomization. I want my opponent to know that he can't
get away with betting trips. Therefore I will call. But if my
opponent knows I will call, he will NEVER bet trips. Therefore, since
I call with all but the worst 5% or so hands that are callable, he is
still going to check trips but I save a bet that 5% of the time I fold
when he bets, "knowing" he has better than trips. The bigger the pot,
the less often I will fold.
I pick the low straight in particular as the hand to throw due to the
off-chance that the AAA has made a straight or flush that my crying
call can miraculously beat. If the other card on board is an off-suit
8, then it would make no difference whether the set of (random) hands
to fold are the low straights or the high flushes. They play the
same.
And I just noticed that the original example was about folding to a
check-raise, not to a bet. The same logic applies.
John Herbst
Chuck Dudek
thing. It was not a terrible mistake to bet the AAA because if my opponent
felt the way you do, you would have at least considered folding.
--
Chuck Dudek
"John Herbst" <npo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7418c078.01121...@posting.google.com...