theory - how would you play it?

[AMRN]

By leading, we are giving him the chance to bluff raise.... in his position, given that we led every street on this board, he can be fairly safe in his assumption that we are unlikely to show up with a J..... so he knows that a position raise is going to get through most of the time.  However, by checking, unless he overbets, we can get our marginal hand to showdown cheaply.

Its highly unlikely you"ll get raised here as a bluff and if you suspect villain will bluff if you lead, not leading would be a mistake.

thing is Brendan, if he does raise the river, he could have any number of hands that beat our weak two pair hand, but is just as likely to have air....   but we really want to get this hand to showdown. We are going to be asked to call a lump reliant on a read, wheras by checking we get our marginal hand to showdown safely and cheaply.

I appreciate that missing value when we"re ahead is as bad as losing chips, however I think there are some circumstances, particularly when out of position, that getting a marginal hand to showdown cheaply is the better option.

[Swinebag]

tough one this

I initially thought bet fold river as you could get called by some worse hands and raised by better ones and would lose the minimum compared to chk calling a bigger river bet where we are behind.

But that board looks a great one for a river bluff too and I"d rather pick off one bet rather than 2 on the river so I"m for check calling this one.

I also would be check calling the turn as well but I am a station

[WYoung83]

 Depends on stack sizes at start of hand, and also ratio of our 2 barrel bets. because with all the action so far looks like the pot has taken up a large % of stack if we didnt started with 100bbs. (havent had time to read others replies, this may have been mentioned)

Could be hard to bet this river. So hard to do blocker bets nowadays, because agressive players with position will just raise on you with nothing because you bet looks obvious. And checking will induce either a bluff or you will get value towned. Hes probably gonna check behind show down hands. 

Read a hand from a couple of years ago very similar to this on Daniel Negranues blog, and he found himself oop with top pair off the flop vs agressive player, turn brings 4 cards to a gutshot, and he acually check min-raised turn to slow his opponent down, and induce a check check river. Cant actually remember outcome, but i know his opponent checked river behind because he didnt want to get check raised twice in the hand.

Hope this makes sense to you guys.

[TheSnapper]

By leading, we are giving him the chance to bluff raise.... in his position, given that we led every street on this board, he can be fairly safe in his assumption that we are unlikely to show up with a J..... so he knows that a position raise is going to get through most of the time.  However, by checking, unless he overbets, we can get our marginal hand to showdown cheaply.

Its highly unlikely you"ll get raised here as a bluff and if you suspect villain will bluff if you lead, not leading would be a mistake.

thing is Brendan, if he does raise the river, he could have any number of hands that beat our weak two pair hand, but is just as likely to have air....   but we really want to get this hand to showdown. We are going to be asked to call a lump reliant on a read, wheras by checking we get our marginal hand to showdown safely and cheaply.

I appreciate that missing value when we"re ahead is as bad as losing chips, however I think there are some circumstances, particularly when out of position, that getting a marginal hand to showdown cheaply is the better option.

Just to clarify Steve, I would definately check call essentially to bluff catch. I don"t think we get bluffed very often if we lead, though if this is another high stakes hand the reverse is likely the case and leading is best, but thats a whole other level of play. Looks like I misinterpreted your post. Apologies.

[TheSnapper]

Insightful.

Why not all three..., OK well, at least two of the choices? Seriously, I bet because I think I have the best hand, which also gives me value & protection if he calls when behind PLUS I want to represent more strength than I actually have.

You raise pf and on the flop you have a weak top pair hand on a draw heavy board that is all over villains pf calling range. Whether you currently have the best hand is not clear just yet.

You may well be ahead and often you will have the best hand currently yet have as little as 45% equity with 2 cards to come.

against a wide continuing range like...
TT-66,QJs,Jc9c,Tc9c,Tc8c,9c8c,8c7c,8s7s,7c6c,QJo,JTo,T9o,98o

we have 52% equity, in position this plays out a lot easier but oop and likely facing a competent opponent. Pot control is my main objective and folding to any significant action can never be too big a mistake and is more often correct. In summary, villain is in control of pot size throughout the hand and if it the pot gets big, its because he wants it that way.

I want to represent more strength than I actually have.

Villains calling range contains X% hands that beat us and Y% hands we have value against, the ratio of X:Y is largely dependent on the strength we represent, this is a basic poker concept.

representing more strength than I actually have = Bluff

[Paulie_D]

if the pot gets big, its because he wants it that way.

Possibly and you are probably correct..and yet we have no information on this villain..is he donk, station or a pro?

This is why I question the value of this particular thread...what point is noble1 trying to make.

There is just so little information on which to base the "proper" decision and without that we can argue all day without coming to a "decision".

In the end it comes down to a person"s style of play...what might seem spewy to some would seem insightful to others. I don"t claim to have the final answer and anyone who does is...just...wrong because the only answer in poker is, as we all know..."It Depends".

I want to represent more strength than I actually have.

representing more strength than I actually have = Bluff

Yep...and yet I might still be ahead.

[noble1]

i"m not making a point Paulie, just giving u a hand to disect with no reads or level/stakes info etc and hoping u guys discuss different concepts when villain is agg or tricky etc etc...
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/69/micro-stakes-pl-nl/theory-looong-how-beat-micros-2nl-50nl-367707/
i took this from a post made about value betting , of course in poker there is more to it with reads especially but i thought this post was well thought out.. [QT from example 3]
In fact its probably better than any book i know of as a way to explain value betting , anyone else know of any?
When WYoung83 mentioned the check raise turn it reminded me of Neil Channings turn check raise in the big game shown a few days ago versus Sam Trickett , does any1 think Neil should bluff river? luvved the 200 bet lol lol , would be interesting if Sam had raised river and Neil shoved lol , now that would be one sicko move
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SSpxtinR0Xk
hand in question is about 7+1/2 mins in , personally i like to see non std moves , but does anyone check flop 2pair here?
Maybe he thought viffer would cbet? meh messy hand in the end...

[Paulie_D]

I get it but your premise is based on micro-stakes and without stack sizes.

At micro-stakes ANYTHING is possible....which changes the hand/play dynamic completely and that, IMO, weakens any argument..especially mine.  

Are we value betting here, bluffing or just trying for showdown? TBH...I"m leaning towards the latter but I think that we can maximise any FE by betting again.

Horses for courses, I suppose and as I said, it depends...after all, it"s not as though there is a "right" answer..just one that works..or not.

[Marty719]

Pretty sure b/f is really bad otr against good players.

Checking back flop is better w/ history to induce so we can c/c c/c but still not terrible to pot control

Stack sizes are very important to river action...but c/f isnt as bad as a lot of people think w/ no history.

[Topstarclub]

Thank you

[Topstarclub]

thank you

[Claw75]

Impossible to say without stack/bet/pot sizes, but presuming we"re fairly deep and the bets so far have been "standard" I"m probably making a blocker bet on the river here - just under half the pot or so.  by check/calling we"re likely making it more expensive get the hand to showdown.

EDIT: oops - just noticed date of OP