Small river bluff

River: It is worth a try. It would be even better if you held something like J♥:T♥:. I'd settle for a 75c bet. This is still 50%+ and gives better odds. A Q that actually hits our hand should not be expecting to get much more value, rather less. This is why I think 90c is too big.

We can even try the turn. PFA is checking the low board...

Well played. You could stab already OTT but this is fine.

I dont think I agree, which beter hand do you expert to folder here? Rather check imo or stab on the turn

Originally posted by dutchnub
I dont think I agree, which beter hand do you expert to folder here? Rather check imo or stab on the turn

AK,AJ,22,44,5x. Imo villains top range is A5 as played and if he can fold that then betting has higher EV than checking. But mabye it is better to stab turn.

Originally posted by YohanN7
River: It is worth a try. It would be even better if you held something like J♥:T♥:. I'd settle for a 75c bet. This is still 50%+ and gives better odds. A Q that actually hits our hand should not be expecting to get much more value, rather less. This is why I think 90c is too big.

Agree that I should have bet smaller.

Originally posted by dutchnub
I dont think I agree, which beter hand do you expert to folder here? Rather check imo or stab on the turn

Making worse hands fold is enough. I agree that the bluff is better the worse we are, but if we don't "bluff with the best hand" he is going to bluff with the worst hand taking our pot. Checking three times here is saying "we hate this pot, please PLEASE take it". He will. I dare say if we check he'll bet if and only if we have him beat. We must then fold, losing this pot 100% of the times. (Forgive the exaggerations, just making sure the point gets there.)

In addition we will feel awkward if we x and he bets...

Originally posted by YohanN7

Originally posted by dutchnub
I dont think I agree, which beter hand do you expert to folder here? Rather check imo or stab on the turn

Making worse hands fold is enough. I agree that the bluff is better the worse we are, but if we don't "bluff with the best hand" he is going to bluff with the worst hand taking our pot. Checking three times here is saying "we hate this pot, please PLEASE take it". He will. I dare say if we check he'll bet if and only if we have him beat. We must then fold, losing this pot 100% of the times. (Forgive the exaggerations, just making sure the point gets there.)

Why would it be enough to make worse hands fold? Assuming all better hands call us we will either win $1.30 if opponent has a worse hand or lose the pot and an additional $0.75 if opponent has a better hand.

Compare this scenario to what you said: opponent will stab 100% with a crap hand if we x/c. Then we win ~$2 (assuming villain also bets around this amount) instead of $1.3. However, with a weak pair that villain has flatted in the above scenario he might now check behind. Thus we dont lose any additional money! If opponent has a better hand and does bet, we will lose a similar amount as when we'd bet ourselves (granted, we cant control the betsize as well, but your typical opponent on NL25 wont just bomb overbet the river)

And yes, unless I have a read villain wont bet a pair after I check twice I will always check/call this river (barring weird overbets perhaps)

Why stabbing the turn is superior to stabbing river: there is much more value in making worse hands fold (then it can actually be profitable) since:
- We can never x/c twice unless we have a big read
- We will make opponent fold his equity
And
- On the river we might hit and become better, or be able to bluff him of a better hand if villain did call with a better hand.

Now imo turn isnt a great card to stab and checking is definately fine, but then check the river too.

How about making hands with equity fold?

On the river? (note; I definately agree with that stance on turn!)

Theoretically you are actually right. In practice, when two shit-hands (the most likely-to-be situation here) clash, the first shit-hand to bet takes down the pot. Check-calling reasonable bets 100% on Q-high rivers with AJ high is probably not a sound idea. It might be that with 22, or at least AK. But AJ is just too weak. You'll get exploited in the long run because people get to see your cards.

Sure, in the long run if we do this multiple times vs this guy, maybe (then again, I dont give too much credit to villains adapting unless I've seen they're a decent reg and able to do so). But then we also have a more clear idea of what he is capable of betting and what he checks through and thus can make a better read to either stab earlier or do something else.

I think in this case we will not see the showdown if we check flop. I'm almost 100% sure that if we do not bet, villain will, even if he has 72o.

Yes. We bet to prevent and to take his equity.