3 Barreled Semi and River Bluff

[CoolDuck]

I don't pull this one out of my back pocket much.  I basically came out with guns smoking. 
Only have 16 hands on this guy, VP is 40 PR is 6, AF is 3.

<a href="http://www.pokerhandreplays.com/flash/replayer.swf?pokerhandid=338149" target="_blank">http://www.pokerhandreplays.com/flash/replayer.swf?pokerhandid=338149</a>

In this hand, the King is a definite scare card, and once he doesn't raise me his range narrows considerably to a draw or small pair, something possibly ace high.  Based on my opponent being a bit aggressive, I thought this was a good river bluff attempt, plenty in the pot, don't have to be right much for this to work.  I'm thinking he folded a better ace high hand here.

What do you think of the river bluff?  This is a much debated topic, and I prefer firing the river in a lot of spots, especially if someone peels lightely or raises draws. 

Does the bluff make sense based on the line I took, and is it right based on this player type?

[verstehen]

Pre-flop and flop is super standard so not much to say there.  I think the river bluff is ok... it doesn't really fit too well with your action.  However it seems possible that he has a draw himself and so is going to fold the river no matter what. 

If you had a hand with any kind of showdown value like even 4th pair I might check it down.  But with just Q high you're almost obliged to bluff the river.

[CoolDuck]

Pre-flop and flop is super standard so not much to say there.  I think the river bluff is ok... it doesn't really fit too well with your action.  However it seems possible that he has a draw himself and so is going to fold the river no matter what. 

I disagree.  How does this line not work?  Strength pre-flop, strength on the flop,  I bet the turn, and river?  A bluff here with nothing balances when I have AK, or any pair.  Now if I checked the turn and then bluffed the river with Queen high, then the line doesn't make sense and is clearly a busted draw.

[poskid]

I agree with V...The problem is that your hand here is a pretty transparent bluffing spot.  If he has any pair he should be calling this river because the river doesnt really fit the action well.  If you have any non-monster hand other than a busted draw you are going to be check/calling this river and that really sucks because your hand is now face up.  He should be calling wide open...even some aces should call this river if opp is decent.  However at this level opps dont think this deeply and the bluff is probably okay.  I would think about what the balance for this bluff would be if you were playing higher stakes so that when you get there you have the thought process.  I guess that you would have to bet some kings for value on the end as well as value betting AJ+ in order to have the proper range to make opp play poorly.  I dunno though this is a toughy situation for a guy who plays NL.  Maybe Tony can give you a bit more info.

Also...I think part of the problem is that we KNOW that opp folded the river.  Without that knowledge maybe we look at the hand a little differently.  Also I understand that the line makes sense however the range is what bugs me here.  Honestly what hands do we play this way on this type of board???  Can you give me a likely range of yourself for this particular line and what the balances are???  Also...where is opp's range???

PK

[Tony]

Another interesting HH Duck 

As V and PK have said, I think preflop and flop are fine.  I'm also fine with continuing your semibluff on the turn.

I do agree though that the king isn't really a scare card, given that you three bet the flop.

The question is, what range are you representing?

Something like (33), (44), 77+, (A3s), (A4s), A7, (K7s), (K8dd), K9dd, KTdd, KJdd, KQdd, Q9dd, QTdd, QJdd, J9dd, JTdd, (T8dd), (T9dd), (98dd), (87dd).

(The hands in brackets are hands which not all TAGs would play from the HJ, although I don't think this changes things much.)

This range contains 100 hands exactly, but the hands containing a king consist precisely nine.  So the majority of your range, given that you three-bet preflop, misses the king.

Also your three-bet probably shows at least top pair+ or a flush draw, so he can narrow your range to sets (18 hands), overpairs (42 hands), A7 (six hands) K7s (4 hands) or flush draws with no pair (12 hands).  You might also be three betting with a hand like A4s with a bd diamond draw.

Looking at this it seems your range is heavily weighted toward made hands, most of which are beating his top pair.  In fact even if he has a hand like A7 he's behind to a flush draw with two overs and two cards to come.  It's a nice illustration of why it's bad to call with hands like A7o versus an EP raise.  Even when he makes his hand he's in bad shape relative to your three-betting range.

BUT the thing is, he DID call the turn.  So either he has a pair or a good ace-high which he doesn't want to fold because of the flush draw, or he has a flush draw himself.

So on the river, assuming he's not worried about the king (otherwise he wouldn't have peeled the turn), what is he folding?  If he has any pair he's not folding when the flush draw missed, and you can say the same thing about A-high assuming he's not worried about the king.  So when you bet you're really only trying to fold out better flush draws, which are pretty unlikely given you hold two diamonds. Also better flush draws have showdown value, so he may well call with them anyway.

So much as it sucks, I'm leaning towards just check/folding the river.  He'll likely check back his ace-high hands and his flush draws with showdown value (all of which beat you anyway), and bet his pairs.  Even if he does do something dumb and bets an ace or Axdd/Kxdd (a lot of bad players do this all the time), you're still losing.

The risk you take is that he'll bluff the flush draws you beat, but these are rather unlikely given that you hold a flush draw yourself and he called a raise preflop.  I guess to find out properly we should put him on a range and see what percentage of this range contains flush draws you beat.  This is practically impossible though, since you don't know the guy and these loose players can have very wide calling ranges.

You're getting good odds to bluff on the end, so it might be closer than I think, not sure.  Damn, LHE is a tough game.

Given that he DID fold, I guess he must have had either ace-high and made a bad fold on the end (given that he decided to call the turn), or a low flush draw.  If you think he's bad enough to fold a pair or ace-high on the river after calling the turn, then betting is obviously fine.  Maybe at these limits betting into weak players is the way to go?  I mean, I'm very surprised he folded the river there.

[CoolDuck]

Good posts from everyone, thanks for commenting.

If you had a hand with any kind of showdown value like even 4th pair I might check it down.  But with just Q high you're almost obliged to bluff the river.

Your right, if I had showdown value I check/call.  Without showdown value and the size of the pot, I'm betting.  $2 bet into a $15 pot, I only have to be right 2/15 or 13% of the time. 

I agree with V...The problem is that your hand here is a pretty transparent bluffing spot.  If he has any pair he should be calling this river because the river doesnt really fit the action well.  If you have any non-monster hand other than a busted draw you are going to be check/calling this river and that really sucks because your hand is now face up.  He should be calling wide open...even some aces should call this river if opp is decent.  However at this level opps dont think this deeply and the bluff is probably okay.  I would think about what the balance for this bluff would be if you were playing higher stakes so that when you get there you have the thought process.  I guess that you would have to bet some kings for value on the end as well as value betting AJ+ in order to have the proper range to make opp play poorly.  I dunno though this is a toughy situation for a guy who plays NL.  Maybe Tony can give you a bit more info.

I guess I disagree, maybe this river is played different in No limit.  I think Tony will back this up, or offer some insight, with any kind of pair and based on the action, this is a value bet with most solid pairs, AK, KQ, 77+.  In NL this could cost you your stack, in limit it's 2 big bets max.  Why would I be scared of a 5, he's unlikely to have one.

Also...I think part of the problem is that we KNOW that opp folded the river.  Without that knowledge maybe we look at the hand a little differently.  Also I understand that the line makes sense however the range is what bugs me here.  Honestly what hands do we play this way on this type of board???  Can you give me a likely range of yourself for this particular line and what the balances are???  Also...where is opp's range???

Agreed, I'll start posting histories without it, and posting the results later.  I think it makes everyone biased. 

My range here:

88+, K10s+ diamonds, basically any two diamons I'm 3-betting the flop with an opponeont of an AF of 3.  The main balance is the pocket play, I'd play any pocket this way on this board, because it's unlikely to hit him and he's likely raising a draw.

Opponent:

He's seems a bit loose and a cold caller.  I give him A5s+, A8o+, K9s+, K10o+, 22+.  Q10s+, QJo+, just as a shot in the dark.

For me the deciding factor is I have no showdown value, I check and lose, even if he missed a draw he's likely betting and pushing me off in with an AF of 3.  And although it doesn't seem to make a difference against a lot of low limit players,  I don't mind showing down a bluff here, 3 barreled, since I get called lighter in the future.

In addition, and maybe this is all in my head, I'm challenging him to call down with ace high or low pairs.  Especially when scare cards hit.  I'm daring him to call with ace high when it looks like I have at least a pair.  I think it's easy to say that it's a call down for him with ace high, but that's still a tough board to call ace high with, I'll show him a pair often enough to make this bluff profitable.  Better hand readers might call down and guess I have a flush draw, but I'll show them pairs often enough as well. 

I am a bit surprised he folded. 

The question is, what range are you representing?
Something like (33), (44), 77+, (A3s), (A4s), A7, (K7s), (K8dd), K9dd, KTdd, KJdd, KQdd, Q9dd, QTdd, QJdd, J9dd, JTdd, (T8dd), (T9dd), (98dd), (87dd).



This range contains 100 hands exactly, but the hands containing a king consist precisely nine.  So the majority of your range, given that you three-bet preflop, misses the king.

Also your three-bet probably shows at least top pair+ or a flush draw, so he can narrow your range to sets (18 hands), overpairs (42 hands), A7 (six hands) K7s (4 hands) or flush draws with no pair (12 hands).  You might also be three betting with a hand like A4s with a bd diamond draw.

Looking at this it seems your range is heavily weighted toward made hands, most of which are beating his top pair.  In fact even if he has a hand like A7 he's behind to a flush draw with two overs and two cards to come.  It's a nice illustration of why it's bad to call with hands like A7o versus an EP raise.  Even when he makes his hand he's in bad shape relative to your three-betting range.

A good guess though I won't raise the lower suited connectors with a VP of 30 to 40 behind me.  I like your hand range analysis, I'll have to practice that in my old histories. 

You're getting good odds to bluff on the end, so it might be closer than I think, not sure.  Damn, LHE is a tough game.

Given that he DID fold, I guess he must have had either ace-high and made a bad fold on the end (given that he decided to call the turn), or a low flush draw.  If you think he's bad enough to fold a pair or ace-high on the river after calling the turn, then betting is obviously fine.  Maybe at these limits betting into weak players is the way to go?  I mean, I'm very surprised he folded the river there.

I suppose it's a bad fold with ace high, but it's a tough call.  I'm not a loose cannon at the table, and like I said the balance is that I bet most pairs in that situation.    77+, straight draw be dammed, the river's getting value betted.

He didn't fold immediately on the river either, so I think he folded ace high.

I've heard some pros talk about this, Ian J at Cardrunners, how he often bluffs on the river for balance.  And that's my main reasoning behind this lately.  For balance, and I'm going to make you call down with ace high in tough spots.  Sometimes you'll be right, but if you get to creative with it I'm going to punish you. 

[poskid]

Maybe at these limits betting into weak players is the way to go?  I mean, I'm very surprised he folded the river there.

Yeah...This was the conclusion I came to as well.  This guy should be calling this river with like +80% of the hands he should typically have given the action.  I mean the likelihood that opp doesnt have at least A-high seems so unlikely here that trying to really decide that the bluff is okay is difficult.  However the badness of the players at this level cannot be discounted and therefore I came to the conclusion that the aggressive river bet is probably okay when your opponent is unable to call with the range of hands that he should.

Also...Duck.  Mostly I'm trying to think about limit some because I feel that it improves my NL game trying to really assign hand ranges like you must in limit.  In NL the hand ranges are important though is much further down the list of skills.  In NL pot control is the #1 critical skill.  In limit you simply dont have that issue.  However you have to be able to make the correct decision more often in limit because you are faced with many little decisions per hand.  It's also one of the reasons why limit is in many ways more difficult than NL.  I love when people talk about how limit is so much easier than NL because you dont get faced with big decisions.  Try making the wrong decision in a NL hand 6 times?  It's possible to do such a thing in a limit hand.

[CoolDuck]

Maybe at these limits betting into weak players is the way to go?  I mean, I'm very surprised he folded the river there.

Yeah...This was the conclusion I came to as well.  This guy should be calling this river with like +80% of the hands he should typically have given the action.  I mean the likelihood that opp doesnt have at least A-high seems so unlikely here that trying to really decide that the bluff is okay is difficult.  However the badness of the players at this level cannot be discounted and therefore I came to the conclusion that the aggressive river bet is probably okay when your opponent is unable to call with the range of hands that he should.

Also...Duck.  Mostly I'm trying to think about limit some because I feel that it improves my NL game trying to really assign hand ranges like you must in limit.  In NL the hand ranges are important though is much further down the list of skills.  In NL pot control is the #1 critical skill.  In limit you simply dont have that issue.  However you have to be able to make the correct decision more often in limit because you are faced with many little decisions per hand.  It's also one of the reasons why limit is in many ways more difficult than NL.  I love when people talk about how limit is so much easier than NL because you dont get faced with big decisions.  Try making the wrong decision in a NL hand 6 times?  It's possible to do such a thing in a limit hand.

Oh yeah I understand, I like your comments, it's much appreciated.

For me I know NL and Limit differ in these situations on the river.   And it is a number of little decisions.  And here I'm just saying if one those decisions is right 13 to 15% of the time I'll make the play.  Even if most of the time I'm wrong. 

[Tony]

I guess I disagree, maybe this river is played different in No limit.  I think Tony will back this up, or offer some insight, with any kind of pair and based on the action, this is a value bet with most solid pairs, AK, KQ, 77+.

Yeah in LHE I think all of those hands are clear value bets, particularly against this kind of player.

For me the deciding factor is I have no showdown value, I check and lose

This isn't necessarily true in general, provided he's passive enough not to bluff a low busted flush draw.  But this particular player looks aggressive and may well bluff these if you check the river.  Mmm, it's a toughie, I can see why you decided to bet.

I think it's easy to say that it's a call down for him with ace high, but that's still a tough board to call ace high with

Oh yeah I'm not saying that calling down with ace-high is a good play in this particular case, I'm just saying that once he's called the turn, then when the flush misses I think he has to call the river.  Whether he should call the turn with ace-high is another matter.

I like your hand range analysis, I'll have to practice that in my old histories. 

I think it can be useful when considering TAG hand ranges, but not necessarily for donk hand-ranges since they're so wide and unpredictable.  But it's often a decent starting point for analysis.

I've heard some pros talk about this, Ian J at Cardrunners, how he often bluffs on the river for balance.

Completely agree and a good point that hand-range analysis doesn't account for.  You have to include some river bluffs in your range or better players will never call you down light.  I do think this kind of thinking is more applicable versus stronger players though.  I also think you don't want to be doing this too often, there's a fine line between adopting a balanced strategy and spewing.

[CoolDuck]

Completely agree and a good point that hand-range analysis doesn't account for.  You have to include some river bluffs in your range or better players will never call you down light.  I do think this kind of thinking is more applicable versus stronger players though.  I also think you don't want to be doing this too often, there's a fine line between adopting a balanced strategy and spewing.

The line is blurry, and rationalizing river bluffs can be a serious leak when you do it too often.  I have a pretty good bluff percentage on the river, since I do it infrequently, and do often give up.