Re-raising on the river without the nuts? |
|
Posted Fri Apr 21, 2006 12:49 pm GMT by gobbledygeek
Noob looking for a advice on this play:
ETA: 2/4 limit.
If I bet on the river and then get raised, I'll never re-raise if I don't have the nuts (even if I've got second best possible hand). I'll call and happily take the other players raised money if I end up with the best hand, and be thankful I didn't re-raise if he has the nuts.
Is this poor play? Or does it depend on what kind of hands you have? For example, maybe this play is ok for 2nd highest straight or 2nd highest flush (?), but if you have, say, I dunno, AA with board 4 5 6 A 5, maybe you are more aggresive with unlikelyhood of quad 5s?
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Fri Apr 21, 2006 1:21 pm GMT by kainARGH
when poseing a question like this , its best to leave as much detail as possible , as the answer will be very specific to the player and your reads and the flop ect. You explained it great here ;
| Quote: | Hero: AA in small blind. Bunch of calls by the time it gets to me, I raise, everyone who is in calls.
Flop: 4 5 6 rainbow
Hero bets, big blind raises, one other person calls and I call. I'm thinking big blind might have two pair, perhaps three of a kind and outside chance at flopped straight. I wasn't supposed to fold here was I?
Turn: 4 5 6 A
Hero bets, big blind raises, one other person calls and I call. At this point I'm fairly convinced big blind has flopped his straight. But I figure I've got lots of outs to pair the board for the full house. Plus, if he only has trips or two pair I've got him crushed.
River: 4 5 6 A 5
Hero bets, big blind raises in disgust and other person RAISES. Me and big blind call. Big blind shows his flopped straight, other person shows his quad 5's. Ug, if it hadda been quad 10's I woulda won 10 grand on the bad beat. Funny, very next hand the Mr. Flopped Straight gets pocket As and they hold up.
|
Posted Fri Apr 21, 2006 2:14 pm GMT by gobbledygeek
I know some will say there are no absolutes in poker and everything depends on the situation, but I dunno... I think I would never re-raise on the river after betting and being raised if I don't have the nuts, regardless of how I've read the hand so far.
Posted Fri Apr 21, 2006 6:36 pm GMT by supafrey
| gobbledygeek wrote: | | I know some will say there are no absolutes in poker and everything depends on the situation, but I dunno... I think I would never re-raise on the river after betting and being raised if I don't have the nuts, regardless of how I've read the hand so far. |
If the board is A5543 and you don't reraise with AA, you're losing alot of money.
Posted Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:43 am GMT by LeafsFan1122
| gobbledygeek wrote: | | I know some will say there are no absolutes in poker and everything depends on the situation, but I dunno... I think I would never re-raise on the river after betting and being raised if I don't have the nuts, regardless of how I've read the hand so far. |
There's a good time and place for every play in poker. When you think you have the better hand, take the extra bet from your opponent.
Posted Sat Apr 22, 2006 2:34 pm GMT by snoogins47
Put bluntly: Even in the intrinsically crappy realm of 'hard and fast' rules for poker strategy, this rule rates as a very poor one. In fact, something like "if raised on the river, I will re-raise whenever I have any straight/flush that uses both my cards, or any hand better than that" would probably be significantly better. Raise more, man.
Posted Mon Apr 24, 2006 10:50 am GMT by gobbledygeek
Man, I'm kinda surprised by the answers. I've only played 50 hours in the casino so far at 2/4 limit, but from the hands I've seen when a river better is raised the raiser seems to have the nuts the majority of the time (with the possible exception of no quads when the board is paired). I'm going to pay closer attention to see if this really is the case.
Taking it from an opposite point of view, if you're holding 2nd highest possible hand and river bet, only to be raised by a player not holding the nuts, that means they have at best 3rd highest possible hand (assuming not holding same 2nd highest possible hand). Seems to me that it is unlikely that a player with at best the 3rd highest possible hand would raise when someone's bet on the river; I doubt they'd raise to try to steal the pot cuz everyone usually calls at this point on the river in 2/4.
Posted Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:45 am GMT by tame_deuces
Like snoogins said, don't play by set rules.
I've seen people capping it out on the river with two pair on a 4-flushed board, versus someone like that two-pair player using this rule would be exceptionally bad poker.
Posted Mon Apr 24, 2006 12:27 pm GMT by gobbledygeek
| tame_deuces wrote: |
I've seen people capping it out on the river with two pair on a 4-flushed board, versus someone like that two-pair player using this rule would be exceptionally bad poker. |
But isn't that hindsight, "gee, I shoulda re-raised him, he only had 2 pair"? At the time you make the decision, you don't know he has 2 pair, he could have the nut flush. Wouldn't you just happily call with K high flush, be glad he didn't have the nuts and gladly take his raise plus the rest of the pot?
It's funny, this play seems so obvious to me. Maybe that's why I'm currently a -2.75BB/hour loser! :D
Posted Mon Apr 24, 2006 2:50 pm GMT by Skribbles
| gobbledygeek wrote: |
It's funny, this play seems so obvious to me. Maybe that's why I'm currently a -2.75BB/hour loser! :D |
Don't always look at what the nut hand is. Think about the possible hands he could be holding.
Example:
You: A  2
Him: ? ?
Board: 5 6 7 8  9 
If you get check raised on the river are you not 3-betting this? You don't have the nuts but there is a vast amount of hands that someone would raise the river with.
Posted Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:18 pm GMT by tame_deuces
| gobbledygeek wrote: | | tame_deuces wrote: |
I've seen people capping it out on the river with two pair on a 4-flushed board, versus someone like that two-pair player using this rule would be exceptionally bad poker. |
But isn't that hindsight, "gee, I shoulda re-raised him, he only had 2 pair"? At the time you make the decision, you don't know he has 2 pair, he could have the nut flush. Wouldn't you just happily call with K high flush, be glad he didn't have the nuts and gladly take his raise plus the rest of the pot?
It's funny, this play seems so obvious to me. Maybe that's why I'm currently a -2.75BB/hour loser! :D |
'
No it isn't hindsight if you know he plays like this and therefore you base your decisions to raise/bet based on this. The board is paired, you have the flush. This guy could go all the way without the boat, maybe even with a lone pair (well, two pair obviously) hence we go all the way. He had the boat and we lose, it doesn't matter...we did the right thing.
Posted Mon Apr 24, 2006 9:01 pm GMT by snoogins47
It really mostly comes down to a simple math problem. It's a bit fuzzy because of the possibility of your opponent 4-betting you (made tricky by the fact that in some cases, he may 4-bet you and lose... or he may flat-call, and win) but generally, if you have a hand that is stronger than 50-60% of the hands that your opponent would raise on the river, you shouldn't hesitate to re-raise, even if that re-raise is going to end up in your opponent's stack frequently.
Take the "I'm glad he didn't have the nuts," and compare it with the "lol he only had two pair," figure out which one you think is more likely, and act accordingly.
Posted Mon Apr 24, 2006 9:44 pm GMT by kainARGH
| snoogins47 wrote: | | Take the "I'm glad he didn't have the nuts," and compare it with the "lol he only had two pair," figure out which one you think is more likely, and act accordingly. |
I don't think it could be explained any better , bravo! 8)
Posted Tue Apr 25, 2006 9:58 am GMT by gobbledygeek
Good points. Maybe I'm just too shy now since my AA with 4 5 6 A 5 board wasn't good enough.
Posted Tue Apr 25, 2006 10:04 am GMT by lwestatbus
| Skribbles wrote: |
Don't always look at what the nut hand is. Think about the possible hands he could be holding.
|
Skribbles is dead on here. In your original posting you had the second best hand (third if suits make a straight flush possible). The only hand that beats you is quad fives, as you pointed out.
There are a LOT of hands that opponent could have reasonably seen the flop with that could develop into monsters for him/her, a suited ace with the second card matching the board (better yet a five), a low pocket pair that flops a set, low suited connectors that match the board. The second five can give him a set or full house easily. In other words, there are several ways your opponent could reasonably arrive at a powerhouse hand that would justify his raise on the river.
But only one of those hands beats you!!! So what are the chances? They should be (2 / 45) x (1 / 44) = 1/1,000. Your expected value from reraising is 0.999 x the bet. When an opponent has to have exactly two very specific cards to beat me I completely discount that possibility unless there has been something in his/her behavior to make me think that he might have been playing that. N This is my first time calculating odds and posting them in this forum. Be kind if I screwed the pooch.
It can happen. Jennifer Harmon had Queens full in an early table at the 2005 WSOP and her opponent made a straight flush on the river. He raised all in and she said, "That is the one card I didn't want to see." She obviously saw the potential and recognized the danger the board presented to her opponent. The fact that he raised all in anyway sent a strong signal. She called and lost.
You are playing limit (as do I). I say jam the pot and take your lumps on those really rare occassions where the unlikely nuts nail you.
Posted Tue Apr 25, 2006 1:04 pm GMT by suitedaces84
| lwestatbus wrote: | | But only one of those hands beats you!!! So what are the chances? They should be (2 / 45) x (1 / 44) = 1/1,000. Your expected value from reraising is 0.999 x the bet. |
This isn't exactly true because your opponent won't raise the river w/any two. It's reasonable to assume, without a read that he'll raise the river with trip 5s or better, which is still a ton of hands and only one of those hands beats you.
Also you have to look at the issue of being re-raised, as he will cap it when you're beat and might not cap it when you beat him.
Anyway, my point is there's way more to deciding whether or not to raise than asking if your hand is good > 50% of the time. Note that would be the case if your opponent would call your raise everytime, but since he has the option to fold or re-raise there's a whole other mess of things to consider.
In the case of the OP's hand, I agree with everyone who said 3-bet.
Posted Fri Apr 28, 2006 5:12 pm GMT by lwestatbus
Well, I had an interesting evening of poker last night that had three hands dead on target to the subject of this post, one of them frighteningly so. (0.50/1.00 FL ring game)
First, I want to quote something that Suited Aces said in an earlier discussion. He said, in effect, that the more bets go into the pot the more likely it is that you are beaten.
Hand 1: (Refer back to OP) (I was fortunately not involved in this hand.) Preflop raiser Raiser turns out to have Pocket Aces. Gets a couple of callers including player Nutso who has been playing loose and aggressive poker. Flop comes A77. Raiser bets, gets some calls, couple of folds. Turn is blank. Raiser bets Nutso raises, one call, Raiser reraises, Nutso caps, remaining bystander folds. River is a blank. Raiser bets, Nutso raises, reraise, cap. You guessed it, Nutso had 77 and flopped quads.
Hand 2: I have suited 8-5 in the big blind. UTG limps, next player raises but gets four calls so I call--13:1 on my call (expecting UTG to call, which he does). Flop is KJ8 rainbow. I check, UTG bets, all call, I call. Turn is an 8 (Whooeee--trip eights). I check, UTG bets, original raises calls, couple of folds, I raise, UTG calls, everyone else folds including original raiser. River is a 5 (Whooeeee again--full house). I bet, UTG raises, I reraise, he caps. You guessed it, he had KK and a better full house, one of four possible hands that could beat me. To be honest I didn't even think about K8 or J8 and he hand't raised preflop so I discounted KK or JJ.
Hand 3: I have J9 suited in the big blind again. (I need to start folding on the big blind--do you see a pattern here?) An early raise, three or four callers (really loose table--I actually ended up doing well over the course of the evening), and I call. Flop comes Ten-Queen-King rainbow. Whooeee--flopped a straight. Original Raiser bets, several calls, I call. Turn is a blank, I check, original raiser bets, couple of folds, couple of calls, I raise, Original Raiser calls, one more call, the rest fold. River is a blank. I bet, Original raiser raises, rest fold and I'm thinking that there is one and only one hand that beats me, AJ. Applying my burgeoning math skills and completely ignoring Suited's sage advice I reraise, and Original Raiser caps. And, you guessed it, Old Original Raiser in fact had a suited AJ.
Live and learn.
Posted Fri Apr 28, 2006 9:05 pm GMT by snoogins47
For the record, "I'm glad he didn't have the nuts" and "lol he only had two pair" are kinda the same thing, when we have the second nuts. I'm leaving my silly mistake for posterity, and possibly as a reminder to myself that I need to actually slow down and check these posts occasionally. In conclusion, raise more.
P.S. Raise more.
|
|
