A Limit Hand

[peterbirks]

Here's a hand I had earlier this morning. It's interesting because it features a river decision (which you don't get very often at NL) and because it's a river decision that crops up relatively often (probably about 1 hand in a hundred, maybe a bit more). As such, it's vital that you make the correct EV move (i.e., the one that maximises your gain in the long run).


GAME $5/$10 TEXAS LIMIT HOLD'EM
Table "Mimosa" (real money) -- Seat 7 is the button
Seat 1: TATERLEGS ($282.00 in chips)
Seat 2: baseballfan ($489.00 in chips)
Seat 3: jungo13 ($183.50 in chips)
Seat 4: pokermon69 ($56.00 in chips)
Seat 5: tdog74 ($188.50 in chips)
Seat 6: gambler2525s ($185.50 in chips)
Seat 7: BIRKS ($381.00 in chips)
Seat 8: KrazyEYKilla ($44.00 in chips)
Seat 9: wph1 ($129.00 in chips)

KrazyEYKilla: Post Small Blind ($2)
wph1 : Post Big Blind ($5)

Dealt to BIRKS (Button) [ Ah ] [ 8h ]
jungo13 : Call ($5)
gambler2525s: Call ($5)
BIRKS : Raise ($10)
jungo13 : Call ($5)
gambler2525s: Call ($5)

Abdulish play here. I’m not folding A8s on the button with two limpers, so I might as well raise.


*** FLOP *** : [ 6c Ad Qs ]

This is a very good flop for me. Opponents might have QK, QJ, QT, or Ax where my kicker beats theirs. With 66 I would have expected at least the first player to have raised rather than limped. In fact, the only hand I can see myself losing to at the moment is A6.

jungo13 : Check
gambler2525s: Check
BIRKS : Bet ($5)
jungo13 : Call ($5)
gambler2525s: Call ($5)


*** TURN *** : [ 6c Ad Qs ] [ 5c ]

Not much change. Someone might have justifiable cause to chase, that’s all.

jungo13 : Check
gambler2525s: Check
BIRKS : Bet ($10)
jungo13 : Call ($10)
gambler2525s: Call ($10)

*** RIVER *** : [ 6c Ad Qs 5c ] [ Ks ]

I have top pair, medium kicker.

jungo13 : Check
gambler2525s: Check

What do I do here? Bet? Or check? There is $79 in the pot.

Comments

[simong-uk.livejournal.com]

I check.
The river isn't a great card for you, MAYBE they were chasing dreams with KJ or KT or something silly and now they hit their King they want to call or MAYBE you get paid by the A2. Against 1 opponent I may think harder about betting it, but against 2 typical players here I would flip the hand up and be grateful if it was still in front.

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Here's how it went down:

BIRKS : Check
*** SUMMARY ***
Pot: $79 | Rake: $3
Board: [ 6c Ad Qs 5c Ks ]

jungo13 lost $25 [ 2h Qh ] (a pair of queens)
gambler2525s lost $25 [ 5s 4d ] (a pair of fives)

BIRKS bet $25, collected $79, net +$54 (showed hand) [ Ah 8h ] (a pair of aces)

Ignoring the dross that these players actually held, the question is, should I bet for value?

I have a horrible feeling that I should.

Let's suppose that I am winning x% of the time. Let's also suppose that I am not going to make a hand that is beating me fold. Opponents will fold y% of the time, call (and beat me) z% of the time, and check-raise me j% of the time. Which I will call through gritted teeth, and lose.

Ignoring all this stupid algebra, plug in these numbers:

I bet, opponents fold, 50% of time.
I bet, one opponent calls, I win, 40% of time.
I bet, one opponent check raises and beats me: 10% of time.

That gives me a gain of 0.4 of a big bet per hand for the hands I win minus a loss of 0.2 of a big bet for the hands I lose.

I think that the numbers might be better than that. First of all, one opponent has to be beating me (which is in itself probably only a 20% shot) and then that opponent has to check his hand rather than bet out. These types of player tend to bet out. If they had flopped a hand that was beating me, or if the turn had given them such a hand, then they would tend to check-raise either on the flop or (usually) on the turn.

At higher levels I'd be a bit more worried, but I think a value bet is (just) in order here.

PJ

[simong-uk.livejournal.com]

One of the primary areas of my limit game I am trying to improve on is getting the bet for value success in the right direction. So, most decisions recently I have counted to ten first and re-evaluated if a bet would be better. Probably what skewed my judgement was originally I found incredible success with preferring to check-call as a bluff-inducer, which is a possibility you haven't included in your maths? The numbers where so overwhelming when I first studied them that it almost made missing the odd value bet immaterial. Now, after perhaps an over-correction, I am trying to get the bost of both worlds.
I think the king on the river seals it for me - not because I fear someone now has 2 pair, but because anyone silly enough still to be in there with a pair of nines etc will now almost certainly give up with an AKQ on board, therefore your value bet is starting to look like a bet that can't win because it is unlikely to get called by a worst hand.
Finally, you do have to consider the sort of shite these 2 have been playing with in that session - the end result speaks volumes about their standards. I'm certainly not confident I am proovably right, but I think I still stick to "check" for an answer.

[simong-uk.livejournal.com]

spelling and grammar check to follow... :(

[(Anonymous)]

From what I've seen, at 15-30 on Party you get a call with a worse hand a huge amount of the time. Certainly a K and often a Q will call there. Very rarely you will be check raised, but a % of time that will be a bluff.

dd

[simong-uk.livejournal.com]

The paradox is that the 15/30 can indeed play that way, but not so much at 5/10 (as per this history)where people seem to value their money slightly more...check raising is more of a possibility IMHO and check raise bluff fairly rare.