Originally Posted by piv

1. river is a clear b/f
2. a 47/0 will check back river and not fire these hands

dunno what you're going on about in the last paragraph

1. if you're going to fold to a raise (on the river) why make the bet? If you ck-c it's most likely the same cost as bet/folding and at least you get to showdown and often enough catch a bluff from a missed draw! OR simply ck-fold at no additional cost at all! I don't see where this is a CLEAR b/f at all.

2. even a 47/0 will get the nuts occationally and have the best hand more often than that. TPTK on the river isn't ahead often enough to be betting it IMO. And if he will ck-back so what? That just means he most likely would fold to a bet so there was no value in betting except as a bluff into a better hand.

One thing I've learned from poker and those that play it, is that there are very few CLEAR anythings! Different player styles, level of experieance, aggression or lack of it, deception and all the other factors that make this simple game so complex has proven that not only are there many ways to play the same hand but none of them are necessarily wrong or right depending on all those factors - including 47/0!

Kevelot and piv;
I think my experieance at live cash games has sufficently supported my previous 2 posts.

Kevelot - More from Harrington - "Small hand = small pot; Big hand = big pot" Just one pair - even TPTK - is a small hand on the river and while it's good enough for a bluff catcher it certainly isn't big enough for a value bet. Betting to cut-off a bluff? Why would you want to cut off a bluff and lose that precious value you were hopeing a weaker hand would call a bet with? You're contradicting your self.

piv - your clearity still look pretty murky to my old eyes! You post a lot but I suspect you don't play a lot of live cash games in a casino. And "IMO" is In My Opinion!! According to several math references, the most winning hand in texas hold'em is 2 pair! So when you say (in all seriousness) "you're ahead enough here." would I be safe in assuming that was just In Your Opinion?

Originally Posted by Aces-o-8s

Kevelot and piv;
I think my experieance at live cash games has sufficently supported my previous 2 posts.

Kevelot - More from Harrington - "Small hand = small pot; Big hand = big pot" Just one pair - even TPTK - is a small hand on the river and while it's good enough for a bluff catcher it certainly isn't big enough for a value bet. Betting to cut-off a bluff? Why would you want to cut off a bluff and lose that precious value you were hopeing a weaker hand would call a bet with? You're contradicting your self.

I'd normally agree with you
but the fact that villan is 47/0 shows that he's a fish and that his calling range is wider
most good players would fold AQ and probably even AK in a similar spot (if they consider me a good player also), but a fish (as you can see by this results) is calling with Qs

cutting-off a bluff is important exactly because I don't have a good enough hand to call a high bet
I'd love to try to induce a bluff if I'm holding a fullhouse

but if I don't bet, I don't know where I'm at if he bets the pot, for instance

in fact, what would you do in this situation if you check and villan bets:
80% of pot
100% of pot
120% of pot
?

would you call all in all of those situations?

1. Just b/c a fish is playing 47/0 (and that's only after 14 hands) doesn't make your hand any stronger than it is and it's still only one pair! Just b/c a player has a wider range doesn't exclude better hands than one pair in that range. A little decresion may lose a little value but it also saves a bankroll a ton of $$$ in the long run.

2. If I bet 1/2 pot to cut off a bluff and get re-r 3x (150% of org. pot) and fold (getting 3-1 odds) I would wished I had checked and called the 120% for 30% less! But then I would only fold less than 30% of the time if for no better reason than to show the guy I don't bluff easy and that a check doesn't always mean weakness or that I didn't have a hand.

I made an error somewhere along the way (got another thread mixed up with this one) and was assuming it was a live cash game in a casino. That doesn't change my position very much althou online I would played this guy as less experieanced than a player at a live game until shown otherwise. If my mistake confused anyone I beg that they get over it and quit busting my chops! ">)

Props to Kavelot for talking about ranges to prove his point.

His wide range doesn't effect our absolute hand strength, but it does effect our relative hand strength (to his range). Based upon his analysis this a clear valuebet, and it does include a lot of strong hands.

equity win tie pots won pots tied
Hand 0: 71.318% 68.99% 02.33% 89 3.00 { AcKc }
Hand 1: 28.682% 26.36% 02.33% 34 3.00 { AA, 99, 77, 22, A2s+, KQs, QTs+, A2o+, KQo, QTo+ }

Bet/Folding is a great move, especially when villain is going to play very straightforward. You get value from worse hands that call, and fold because he raises all hands that beat you.
When we're comparing the value of a bet/fold against a check/call (to pick off bluffs) we should be looking at our opponents range and what he does with it. A very loose passive player is a going to have a far wider calling range than a bluffing range, so I think in this situation we bet.

Also, you don't save yourself money over time by not making valuebets, you can only gain value by betting when you have an equity edge. When a valuebet is thin enough though, you can check to decrease variance.

The bottom line is (and this is very clear) it's your money!! Play it as you want to!