[NL2-NL10] NL10: KJs bluff induce + bad river call?

    • Avatars91
      Avatars91
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.12.2009 Posts: 2,689
      Poker Stars $10.00 No Limit Hold'em - 5 players - View hand 1885829
      DeucesCracked Poker Videos Hand History Converter

      SB: $9.90 - VPIP: 22, PFR: 9, 3B: 0, AF: 0,4, Hands: 32
      Hero (BB): $10.15 - VPIP: 22, PFR: 19, 3B: 5, AF: 4,7, Hands: 65799
      UTG: $10.30 - VPIP: 20, PFR: 14, 3B: 8, AF: 2,9, Hands: 200
      CO: $19.85 - VPIP: 28, PFR: 5, 3B: 3, AF: 2,1, Hands: 187
      BTN: $11.54 - VPIP: 22, PFR: 17, 3B: 2, AF: 3,3, AFq: 39, Hands: 138

      Pre Flop: ($0.15) Hero is BB with J :diamond: K :diamond:
      2 folds, BTN raises to $0.30, 1 fold, Hero calls $0.20

      Flop: ($0.65) 3 :heart: 8 :heart: 6 :spade: (2 players)
      Hero checks, BTN checks

      Turn: ($0.65) K :spade: (2 players)
      Hero checks, BTN bets $0.50, Hero calls $0.50

      River: ($1.65) 2 :heart: (2 players)
      Hero checks, BTN bets $1.30, Hero calls $1.30

      I like my turn check/call line since villain likely does not have a strong hand anyway since he checked behind + he can easily decide to just fire a barrel trying to represent the King. I am not sure if my river call makes much sense though. I thought that since he bets so big he pretty much represents only AK given the way the hand played out, maybe sometimes KQ, but really, I would expect him not to bet that big even with these two hands from time to time since it is clear that my hand is not all that strong to easily call bigger bets, thus, depending on his competency, we can still assume that his river bet size actually makes little sense and we can call? Or do we just assume that he still might not be good enough to bet smaller with KQ and AK in that spot? Villain is even somewhat aggressive.
  • 5 replies
    • veriz
      veriz
      Black
      Joined: 20.07.2008 Posts: 65,504
      Hello Avatars91,

      Whatever is fine, though if he is rather passive then I'd prefer just Betting myself.

      Best Regards.
    • Avatars91
      Avatars91
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.12.2009 Posts: 2,689
      1) What do you think of my thought process/analysis regarding the decision of whether or not to call the river in the context of his river betsizing? Am I thinking correctly or am I overlooking some important aspects there?

      I am not sure if my river call makes much sense though. I thought that since he bets so big he pretty much represents only AK given the way the hand played out, maybe sometimes KQ, but really, I would expect him not to bet that big even with these two hands from time to time since it is clear that my hand is not all that strong to easily call bigger bets, thus, depending on his competency, we can still assume that his river bet size actually makes little sense and we can call? Or do we just assume that he still might not be good enough to bet smaller with KQ and AK in that spot? Villain is even somewhat aggressive.


      2)
      if he is rather passive then I'd prefer just Betting myself


      If villain is indeed passive are betting mainly for protection vs Ax? Because it is tough to see value from many worse hands except weaker Kx (which he would likely bet himself anyway) and neither is there all that much to protect from, given that villain did not cBet (he probably would have with an FD or SD (sometimes not GSs though))
    • veriz
      veriz
      Black
      Joined: 20.07.2008 Posts: 65,504
      1) What do you think of my thought process/analysis regarding the decision of whether or not to call the river in the context of his river betsizing? Am I thinking correctly or am I overlooking some important aspects there?

      Well, what do you want to hear here? :P Processes rather depends how we see the guy, I mean if you really assumed that to be true then why did you Call the river? :P

      If villain is indeed passive are betting mainly for protection vs Ax? Because it is tough to see value from many worse hands except weaker Kx (which he would likely bet himself anyway) and neither is there all that much to protect from, given that villain did not cBet (he probably would have with an FD or SD (sometimes not GSs though))

      Well, I still assume him to CB more often with draws on the flop already or even backdoors, so rather not that many draws around his range, at the best the backdoor FD.
    • Avatars91
      Avatars91
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.12.2009 Posts: 2,689
      I mean if you really assumed that to be true then why did you Call the river?


      I thought that since he bets so big he pretty much represents only AK given the way the hand played out, maybe sometimes KQ, but really, I would expect him not to bet that big even with these two hands from time to time since it is clear that my hand is not all that strong to easily call bigger bets, thus, depending on his competency, we can still assume that his river bet size actually makes little sense and we can call? Or do we just assume that he still might not be good enough to bet smaller with KQ and AK in that spot? Villain is even somewhat aggressive.


      According to my analysis I should have called the river bet and that's what I did. I just wanted to know if you would have done the same and if my reasoning behind this decision is sound. Or is it something that I still should know better since I have been playing with the guy @ the table, whereas you have not?
    • veriz
      veriz
      Black
      Joined: 20.07.2008 Posts: 65,504
      Originally posted by Avatars91
      I mean if you really assumed that to be true then why did you Call the river?


      I thought that since he bets so big he pretty much represents only AK given the way the hand played out, maybe sometimes KQ, but really, I would expect him not to bet that big even with these two hands from time to time since it is clear that my hand is not all that strong to easily call bigger bets, thus, depending on his competency, we can still assume that his river bet size actually makes little sense and we can call? Or do we just assume that he still might not be good enough to bet smaller with KQ and AK in that spot? Villain is even somewhat aggressive.


      According to my analysis I should have called the river bet and that's what I did. I just wanted to know if you would have done the same and if my reasoning behind this decision is sound. Or is it something that I still should know better since I have been playing with the guy @ the table, whereas you have not?
      Why I would see the call possible here is that as you said he is aggressive which means he would Bet the flop already himself with FD. Afterwards on the river he can't really represent AK cause FD also completes so he ain't getting called from a lot worse.