High Stakes Strategy Poker Forums

agreed that seems right on! nice post

lol everyone thinks its a snap call b/c krantz agreed with the guy who said its a snap call. Guaranteed if krantz didn't post anything there would be a different reaction. I'm not saying its not a call, just posting my observation/prediction.

Conversley, if you have been a station vrs him on the river in past hands, this becomes more of a call, and if you have reluctant to bluffcatch its more of a fold.
.

wouldn't it be the opposite? if you've been a station vs him in past hands, he's less likely to be bluffing you unless he's totally leveling you, no? I tend to think most players would be 1st level, i.e. thinking "this guy has stationed it down, so I'm not gonna bluff him here," and not thinking, "he knows he looks like a station so therefore he will fold if i bluff. " why do you think it's the other way?

and since there's a "potcontrolling move" by hero we cannot simply value the later streets action on its own, because we do not have enough information to make "smart" decisions.

can you clarify this? that is, what do you mean by not being able to "simply value the later streets action on its own"? And what's the correlation between that and the pot control move by hero? And what do you mean by not having "enough information to make 'smart' decisions'?

yeah i somewhat was speaking in riddles lol

i tried to name what other replies did not take into account. it looks like it is common sense that villain has to bet a flushdraw on the flop while villain might check back 100% of his range here to potcontrol or keep villain in or bluff. this way a check for a freecard and keeping worse in is awesome. oh and he might have been going for a c/r on the flop.

if villain was in there to c/c the flop do you really think he did that to c/r bluff a weak madehand occasionally? even if so, the whole plan must have changed after villain checked back. the decision villain is facing now, after c/c turn, is not "oh bluff or fold" but call or fold. heros hand is well defined, because villain thinks his range is. he reps Jx+ and nothing else. he cannot believe that hero will fold Ax to a c/r. and even if so (unlikely), he has to have a better hand sometimes. if not he just played it bad (unbalanced). but given his raise size he just has it and its not like they know each other so balancing especially this river against an unknown is simply retarded.
so i doubt he is not going for value here, simply because everything else is stupid.

and what i meant with "smart" decision is ignoring this while collecting information throughout the hand BUT act like you had it.. as well as an answer to the replies that said he cant have a real hand (flush,twopair,set) here. aaaaand as a reply to those who think villain is so stupid that he bluffs here with only repping like 5 combinations of hands and they want hero to be smart, while he has nothing but a guessing game going on.

and what i meant with "smart" decision is ignoring this while collecting information throughout the hand BUT act like you had it.. .

thanks for clarifying. im still a bit unclear about what you mean by this though. ignoring what? acting like you had what?

thanks

well i was just missing in the repliers posts that they do not say a word about the flop and act like the hand is not happening there at all and only take later streets into account for the riverplay and weird mathematics lol

its an important factor that we do not know what he was going to do after his check on the flop, simply because hero checked behind.

if both players don't really know each other (I take it from the "no reads" statement), why should villain c/x a hand like AJ on the flop? If both have history with each other you can find arguments, but against an unknown, it doesn't really make any sense iMo, or do I miss here something?

Funny that this hand pops up again. I still don't really know what to think of it...

wouldn't it be the opposite? if you've been a station vs him in past hands, he's less likely to be bluffing you unless he's totally leveling you, no? I tend to think most players would be 1st level, i.e. thinking "this guy has stationed it down, so I'm not gonna bluff him here," and not thinking, "he knows he looks like a station so therefore he will fold if i bluff. " why do you think it's the other way?

No, simply because he check/raised the river. If we were viewed as a station on the river ,he's gona just bet there waaaay more often.
also factoring in that he is more likley to bet the turn to build a pot for river if he veiws us as river/stationary.
So when he views us as a river nit he's, less likley to just bet out and more likley to c/c or c/r with his entire range then just bet as we dont pay off rivers.


for me this would be an easier decision if I thought I was viewed as a station, as when your viewed as a nit in this spot you have to factor in that he could still be c/r bluffing vrs a thinvalue betting nit=-).
This is off topic though as hero is readless.So i'm defaulting on a call as its just such a strange value line for a reg to take vrs an unknown.
Also our hand is prety face up by the river.and although it would be a terrible spot for him to be bluffing imo, he's still way more likley to be bluffing then taking some weird value line.
Of course he could have riverd a set or something but thats too few combos to be giving much reguard to.

also i noticed that bluffing like this vrs decent regs at lower stakes issnt terrible as they wont bet/call there with Ax(or any other thin value betting hand), but at these stakes i'l bet regs will bet/call Ax here vrs other regs frequently enough with history, but wats getting me is will a reg bet/call Ax here without history, I guess the only guys that have that answer, are the guys that play these stakes.

No, simply because he check/raised the river. If we were viewed as a station on the river ,he's gona just bet there waaaay more often..

But if we were viewed as a station, he wouldn't be trying to bluff us at all. And whether or not we're viewed as a station is sort of irrelevent in his decision as to whether he wants to lead or go for a c/r - the deciding factor is how often he can expect us to bet the river ourselves. i.e. if we're viewed as station and he thinks we won't bet the river, he leads. If we're viewed as a station and he thinks we will bet the river, he c/r's. Our stationy tendencies are completely separate from our perceived river betting frequency.

Also, hes unknown, so he might not even be thinking about how often we bet the river ourselves. He could just be thinking "big hand, I'll try to c/r to get paid more for my hand." I do agree that it's a weird line to take for value, and I'm not saying I know how often he can expect us to bet the river, or whether I think calling is best of folding is best, but what I disagree with is the reasoning that the more we're viewed as a station, the more it's call. I'm confident that if we're viewed as a station, he's less likely to be bluffing us at all, and that includes with river c/r.

there is a massive difference in calling a single bet on the river and calling a 'river check/raise'.

What if your playing vrs a reg that will call a single bet, in medium sized pots on the river with a medium hand. but wont ever bet/call the river without the nuts.i know what id be thinking when hero makes that thin value bet.

What if your playing vrs a reg that will call a single bet, in medium sized pots on the river with a medium hand. but wont ever bet/call the river without the nuts.i know what id be thinking when hero makes that thin value bet.

but you wouldnt be a station if you never bet/called the river without the nuts. . .

Was just thinking about one other thing in this hand that could have been going on.Would like to here OPs thoughts on this.
Do you think he could have been going for a c/r on the flop with a flushdraw, checked the turn hoping you bet, then when you check behind it looks like you have sd value and might bet the river if he checks again.(i mean when you check/back the turn there, you should always have weak sd value that you bet/ or air you might stab with but nothing your calling with)
This could be a very creditable way of him getting here with a flush.

Was just thinking about one other thing in this hand that could have been going on.Would like to here OPs thoughts on this.
Do you think he could have been going for a c/r on the flop with a flushdraw, checked the turn hoping you bet, then when you check behind it looks like you have sd value and might bet the river if he checks again.(i mean when you check/back the turn there, you should always have weak sd value that you bet/ or air you might stab with but nothing your calling with)
This could be a very creditable way of him getting here with a flush.

hero bet the turn