[NL10] Lead river

    • jimecek
      Joined: 13.09.2011 Posts: 102
      Its not me but villians from my limits. This is typical lead on the river?

      PokerStars, Hold'em No Limit - $0.05/$0.10 - 6 players
      Hand delivered by Upswing Poker

      UTG: $10.00 (100 bb)
      MP (Hero): $15.43 (154 bb)
      CO: $10.75 (108 bb)
      BU: $10.00 (100 bb)
      SB: $10.60 (106 bb)
      BB: $13.83 (138 bb)

      Pre-Flop: ($0.15) Hero is MP with Q 7
      UTG raises to $0.30, MP (Hero) folds, CO calls $0.30, 2 players fold, BB calls $0.20

      Flop: ($0.95) A 2 J (3 players)
      BB checks, UTG checks, CO bets $0.45, BB folds, UTG calls $0.45

      Turn: ($1.85) 4 (2 players)
      UTG checks, CO bets $0.97, UTG calls $0.97

      River: ($3.79) 7 (2 players)
      UTG checks, CO checks

      Total pot: $3.79 (Rake: $0.17)

      CO mucks A 4 (two pair, Aces and Fours)
      (Equity - Pre-Flop: 32%, Flop: 26%, Turn: 66%, River: 0%)

      UTG shows A T (a flush, Ace high)
      (Equity - Pre-Flop: 68%, Flop: 74%, Turn: 34%, River: 100%)

      UTG wins $3.62
  • 2 replies
    • lfcmichael
      Joined: 30.10.2016 Posts: 166
      As played, I think UTG should lead on the river. I guess he was hoping to check-raise.
    • mbml
      Joined: 27.11.2008 Posts: 20,779
      you probably shouldnt have too much of a leading range unless the card favours your RANGE more than your opponents. The caller's range tends to have a greater proportion of strong hands when the middle card pairs or on coordinating cards (getting twopairs or straights) but this applies more for turns than vs 2 barrels.

      I think the aggressor has a much higher proportion of backdoor flushes than the caller which is why the caller should check to protect the rest of his range. With that said, whether we can lead here exploitatively is another issue altogether, given how passive this guy is (not barreling twopairs on the river), it might make sense.