How Large Should We Check-Raise on The River

I chose $120 because I think he probably has trips (KQ,KT) or fullhouse(KJ,66)
AK KK JJ is unlikely since he would have 3 bet preflop.

Actually betting $172 is appealing too, but i think betting $172 may scare him off, therefore I chose $120 as it is easier for him to call.

Originally posted by cookyik
I chose $120 because I think he probably has trips (KQ,KT) or fullhouse(KJ,66)
AK KK JJ is unlikely since he would have 3 bet preflop.

Actually betting $172 is appealing too, but i think betting $172 may scare him off, therefore I chose $120 as it is easier for him to call.

I agree that KK is very unlikely, if he has that i'll never play on stars again

I actually think we should just bet. He could still herocall with Jx, He could raise worse for value and he could bluffraise still. We can 3bet if he raises a boat and I don't think he 3bets 66 on the river for example. I'd make a 80% river bet myself.

Shove all-in and get a hero call from Jx. Easy game.

I would raise to $135. $120 is good too. 172 is a bit too much!

Given we have stats on villain we can expect to have some dynamic or history. But since that information is not present I'd go with a bigger check/raise where we are representing a pretty polarized range (as his bet looks like thin value or cheap bluff so he may level himself into calling BvB).

Originally posted by BogdanPS
Given we have stats on villain we can expect to have some dynamic or history. But since that information is not present I'd go with a bigger check/raise where we are representing a pretty polarized range (as his bet looks like thin value or cheap bluff so he may level himself into calling BvB).

+ + +

Originally posted by Kyyberi
Shove all-in and get a hero call from Jx. Easy game.

OK -- speaking as a person who has never played this limit, why do we not bet out?

Checking behind is a possibility, is it not?

We don't have image information, which seems v important here.

If we bet and get a fold, then we are no worse off than if we check and villain checks behind.

It seems to me that a bet here would be OK. The size should be big enough that villain is tempted to raise, but not too big to force a fold, and not too small that he can just call.

It seems whenever I try the x/r route, I end up with a check behind, the nuts, and nothing to show for it.

--VS

Why would we want to check/raise here? I think betting is much better option because villain is checking back with most bluffcatcher type of hands that we can get value from by betting and villain is going to raise our third barrel with QT and full houses most likely and we can 3bet. If there are some kind of dynamics between these two then it might be a different story, how villain reacts to check/raises etc...

I would go for a big check / raise since he will call most of the range he is willing to call anyway + he might level him self.

Without knowing history etc.
The villain is playing passively so why attempt a trap?
We have the initiative so he is to expect a bet.
I would bet $50 and shove any raise.

Mark

I also agree that we should bet ourselves. It's very possible we get raised and called after we 3bet/shove and win a lot more.
In another matter, isn't voting "I won't answer polls out of principle", answering a poll?

Betting is better if villain calls JX a lot and checks back river w KX a lot.

Checkraise is better if villain never calls JX and will often bet KX.

Imo a bad player would fulfill the second criteria more often, making this a much more profitable CR spot.

I would also prefer going for a huge size like 150$

my two cents:

Betting ourselves
The tough thing with this spot for me is that on the one hand it's hard to expect villain to call down three streets unless:
1) he a strong hand anyway and is never folding
2) is very passive
3) doesn't give us much credit, due to table dynamic and our image / history etc ( we don't have this info available, which I feel would be crucial in decision making OTR)

Check raising:
It's also tough to expect villain to bluff when we check to him OTR especially since we have show strength preflop, OTF, OTT already, unless:
1) villain is very aggressive
2) we have already seen him perform this kind of double float
3) he thinks our range for stealing and barrelling is very wide and weak and is exploiting this by floating two streets and betting on the end since he thinks we are almost always x/folding here or something.
4) there is a very agressive dynamic between hero and villain.

So if we don't expect villain to bluff in this spot we are only getting value from hands that villain would never fold OTR anyway ( Kx, straights, weaker FH's.... maybe Jx). This would mean that our reasoing for x/raising vs betting ourselves is that one would yield a greater profit in the long run that the other.

Without further stats or reads (which I think are crucial in this spot) I would prefer x/raising on the bigger side just because I find it hard to believe that villain would call down with JX or worse. Therefore I would prefer to give him the opportunity to bluff and also win a bigger pot if he has a very strong hand like QT, KX and weaker FH's that I think he will at least bet/call with.

Re: sizing OTR I would make it $152 and give villain 2:1 on a call ( I think) and go broke to further aggression.

The Combonator tells me that you are targeting this:

• 12 combos of straights (provided he slowplays them on turn)
• 10 full house combos
• 27 combos with trips
• Essentially nothing else can call a check-raise

So, assuming he slowplays the nut straight 50% of the time...., his calling hands for big raises are dominated by full houses.

Shove!

(because you are so deep :))