Small Stakes Shorthanded NL Poker Forums

does anyone like check jamming the river here against a reg who wud always bet a flush on the turn?

Poker Stars $100.00 No Limit Hold'em - 6 players - View hand 1682763
DeucesCracked Poker Videos Hand History Converter

UTG: $105.94 - VPIP: 21, PFR: 16, 3B: 5, AF: 3.0, Hands: 128
MP: $133.78 - VPIP: 48, PFR: 14, 3B: 4, AF: 1.1, Hands: 64
CO: $107.62 - VPIP: 22, PFR: 16, 3B: 6, AF: 2.1, Hands: 1273
BTN: $109.72 - VPIP: 15, PFR: 13, 3B: 8, AF: 9.0, Hands: 155
SB: $121.50 - VPIP: 22, PFR: 17, 3B: 13, AF: Infinity, Hands: 94
Hero (BB): $105.66

Pre Flop: ($1.50) Hero is BB with J K
2 folds, CO raises to $2.50, 2 folds, Hero calls $1.50

Flop: ($5.50) K 5 4 (2 players)
Hero checks, CO bets $3.41, Hero calls $3.41

Turn: ($12.32) 6 (2 players)
Hero checks, CO checks

River: ($12.32) 7 (2 players)
Hero checks, CO bets $8.50,

bump!

what would you be trying to bluff if he always bets a flush on the turn (doesn't have flush)?

What would you be getting value from that would call that kind of bet?

what would you be trying to bluff if he always bets a flush on the turn (doesn't have flush)?

What would you be getting value from that would call that kind of bet?

i mean check jamming as a bluff to make him fold a straight

i think a straight is an incredibly small portion of his range... we would be much better just trying to get some little value from lower Kx or lower pps.

Plus, if we bet for value against smaller pairs/kx hands, then he raises repping a straight, you could conceivably then bluff shove repping the flush since you would have played it that way as well plus taken down his sizable raise.

I think plays like this are a little too fps for me though.

so u think after checking back the turn and betting the river he has Kx is his range, i thought leading river was a little thin for value

I don't think you can check/call the river here. CO can easily be opening 22+, JTo+, K8s+, 45s+ in this spot. You're only beating a small part of that range on the river, only KT, maybe K8s, K9s, and QQ/JJ/TT/99. Not many villains are good enough to bet this river with those hands for thin value, so when you check call, you're always up against better value hands. If you want to bet for thin value, it could be better.

That said, if you're going to check/shove as a bluff you need to have a good read that villain can fold two pair or a straight. Personally, I'm not giving random villains that much credit without a good read.

Also, ask yourself if you had the flush, would you play it this way? When it goes c/c on the turn, would you really check the river again? Or would you be more likely to bet and hope to get value? Basically, if you check/shove the river, are you telling a realistic story of what you would do with the flush?

You're highly polarizing your range with this move. You've either got a bluff (in this case, you're turning a medium made hand into a bluff) or you've got the flush. If villain is giving you credit in this session, it can be ok, but again I'd need a read that this is the case.

so u think after checking back the turn and betting the river he has Kx is his range, i thought leading river was a little thin for value

his aggression frequency doesn't look too high so he could be pot/controlling with weaker top pair or lower pairs.

besides... after he checks turn, if you had flush... you would almost always bet out the river afraid it would go check/check

so I would expect a check/jam to be wtf?

so u think after checking back the turn and betting the river he has Kx is his range, i thought leading river was a little thin for value

I don't think he has Kx in his range taking a turn check, river bet line. At least, not a Kx that you're beating.

If he's "pot controlling" the turn with Kx because of a scary card, do you think he's more or less likely to bet the river when another scary card comes?

I think villain will just want to get to showdown with Kx in that spot, he's probably not good enough to go for thin value with top pair on the river here, and he's even less likely to go for thin value with a Kx that you're beating (really only K9, KT).

I don't think he has Kx in his range taking a turn check, river bet line. At least, not a Kx that you're beating.

If he's "pot controlling" the turn with Kx because of a scary card, do you think he's more or less likely to bet the river when another scary card comes?

I think villain will just want to get to showdown with Kx in that spot, he's probably not good enough to go for thin value with top pair on the river here, and he's even less likely to go for thin value with a Kx that you're beating (really only K9, KT).

thats the point i was making, he's pretty much never bluffing or value betting worse thats y i wanted to raise, i cud conceivably check twice with a flush here aswell, i think a decent amount of his range would be improved by this river and he may bet which he did, i can have a flush he can't was my logic

I think, in general in today's games, you'll have more success taking a weird line like this if you actually have the flush and hope to get called by a straight, rather than try to rep the flush and fold out a straight. People aren't terrible concerned about getting stacked and a lot of times will let their curiosity get the best of them and look you up. Also, think about how much you're risking in order to a win a pot that's not all that big when you don't have any idea how likely villain is to look you up if he has a straight.

To address some of the ideas that have been presented here:

I don't think villain is ever value betting worse. He isn't checking back a hand like KT on the turn only to go for thin value with it on the river when the board makes 4 to a straight.

We definitely can't profitably lead the river. Half of his calling range would need to be worse than what we have, and I'm not convinced he would ever call with worse unless we min bet.

Luke mentions villain not being good enough to go for thin value on the river with top pair. If villain isn't getting called by worse often enough to make a thin value bet profitable, then a more accurate statement is that villain IS good enough to check back a hand like top pair knowing that he would be value cutting himself by betting. We really need to be careful when we make these sorts of statements. Certain lines are not absolutely good or absolutely bad in a vacuum. They all operate within a context. Sometimes going for thin value is an expert play, and other times it's lighting money on fire.

I think, in general in today's games, you'll have more success taking a weird line like this if you actually have the flush and hope to get called by a straight, rather than try to rep the flush and fold out a straight. People aren't terrible concerned about getting stacked and a lot of times will let their curiosity get the best of them and look you up. Also, think about how much you're risking in order to a win a pot that's not all that big when you don't have any idea how likely villain is to look you up if he has a straight.

To address some of the ideas that have been presented here:

I don't think villain is ever value betting worse. He isn't checking back a hand like KT on the turn only to go for thin value with it on the river when the board makes 4 to a straight.

We definitely can't profitably lead the river. Half of his calling range would need to be worse than what we have, and I'm not convinced he would ever call with worse unless we min bet.

Luke mentions villain not being good enough to go for thin value on the river with top pair. If villain isn't getting called by worse often enough to make a thin value bet profitable, then a more accurate statement is that villain IS good enough to check back a hand like top pair knowing that he would be value cutting himself by betting. We really need to be careful when we make these sorts of statements. Certain lines are not absolutely good or absolutely bad in a vacuum. They all operate within a context. Sometimes going for thin value is an expert play, and other times it's lighting money on fire.

i agree with all this i just felt he is prob value betting most two pairs any three and any 8, he can never really hav a flush and he folds anything but an 8 which he may even fold, i think he his bet folding most of his range here and possibly even all of it and is hard for me to have nothing here unless I'm turning a hand into a bluff, at 100nl against a reg if he calls a shove he is nearly always seeing a flush here, ill run some math on it, just think he's snap folding everything but an 8

Luke mentions villain not being good enough to go for thin value on the river with top pair. If villain isn't getting called by worse often enough to make a thin value bet profitable, then a more accurate statement is that villain IS good enough to check back a hand like top pair knowing that he would be value cutting himself by betting. We really need to be careful when we make these sorts of statements. Certain lines are not absolutely good or absolutely bad in a vacuum. They all operate within a context. Sometimes going for thin value is an expert play, and other times it's lighting money on fire.

Yea, I was operating under a few assumptions talking about a thin value bet from villain on the river. Thanks for clarifying . In this specific hand, I think we can agree that we are bluff catching on the river because villain is never betting a worse Kx, so he either has two pair+ or air. Personally, I think it's unlikely villain is bluffing.

i agree with all this i just felt he is prob value betting most two pairs any three and any 8, he can never really hav a flush and he folds anything but an 8 which he may even fold, i think he his bet folding most of his range here and possibly even all of it and is hard for me to have nothing here unless I'm turning a hand into a bluff, at 100nl against a reg if he calls a shove he is nearly always seeing a flush here, ill run some math on it, just think he's snap folding everything but an 8

A lot depends on whether or not he has value hands that checked the turn and are betting the river. It seems more likely to me that your average player would continue on the turn with sets and 2 pairs, then check the river when the board runs out nasty.

Again, a lot of unknowns and what ifs here, which would tend to make me shy away from lines like this.

It seems more likely to me that your average player would continue on the turn with sets and 2 pairs, then check the river when the board runs out nasty.

yeah maybe is spewy i just meant hands that the river improves cause he wouldn't check strong ones on the turn, hands like 77, 76s, A3s, maybe 34s, 35s, 57s, K7s and can still have some air or hands like A4s to make me fold like 99s or KT or something once i check twice, just felt there were more combos of those that he would b bet folding than hands with an 8 in them that he would (say conservatively) bet call maybe 3 out of every 4 times, cud hav 88, 86s, 85s K8s think he'd barrel most other 8s at least most of the time, prob works out that i need him to fold like pretty much all the time at least 80% to make it +EV so is prob bad......still think chipchucker or krantz wud shove here