Weak or not Weak?

[SirFWALGMan]

I was reading a Post on a Blog, and kind of added to it on my Blog. The question was as follows:

Is it weak or a good play to bet the river with TP? The idea is that when you do this there are a couple of possible outcomes.

1. Some fool pays you off (does not happen very much at the "good" levels)
2. Some smart player raises your river bet and beats you with 2 pair.
3. Some smart player missed his draw and fold so as to not to pay you off.

Most of the possible outcomes of betting TP on the river seem to be bad. So is it best to check-call? Is this too weak? I am kind of a weak player so I like the idea of check-calling TP on the river. I was mulling it over for a bit last week and I really do like that play. The only exception might be the low-limit levels where most of the players are bad and will pay off your river bet with 3rd pair.

[badblood44]

I think betting on the river in limit play is like the prisoner's dilema-type problem. You have 4 outcomes, 2 of which are slightly +EV, one is very -EV and one is very +EV.

If you play consistently with no outside information, not betting the river is probably the wisest choice. Not always right, but long-term slightly +EV.

[New Guy]

I think It really depends on how the play has shaped up thru out the hand.Pre flop is most important.Always remember whats happend at least in that hand and hopefully a few before with the others in the pot!!!

[BlibbityBlabbity]

I tend toward checking with the intention of calling the one bet. I would lean this way MORE in low limit as there is more of a likelyhood of a player chasing and you just never know when that 4 that hit the river gave them two pair/trips/straight/whatever.

I liken this to the check-in-the-dark in 7 stud when you are sure someone is drawing against you. Why bet into them and charge yourself an extra bet to find out they hit?

Certainly there are times when you would have gained an extra bet, but you never can know ahead of time what percentage of the time you would gain/loose that extra bet (especially at low limits when any two might just do for somone).

[Gordogg]

I like the check on the river because usually you aren't going to get called unless you are beaten anyways. Against average to good players that is. (Although I'm amazed at some players that I've played against who call all the way to the river only to fold to one bet on the river when they have pot odds to call. Makes me smile If you bet and the other guy folds what do you gain? You risked a bet to win a pot you probably would've won by showing down anyways. Check calling is more of a read on the player you are up against I think. Is he loose or tight? Bluff much? etc....

my humble two cents

ChiefBigtoke

[PShabi]

I go both ways. uh, nevermind. Anyway, I hate hard and fast rules in poker and I'm really terrible at giving advice because I rely so much on my instinct and read of that player. I know, I know, 3/6 online, how much of a read/instinct can you have. Enough to let me make the right decision most of the time.

I like to check the river when i suspect and aggressive player to be on a draw and he has position on me. If I check, he might think I missed my draw too and try to bluff at the pot. If I know I'm golden, I can come over top.

At the very worst, I call and win an extra bet here due to his bluff.

That's the best time to check the river IMO.

[Talking Poker]

It is NEVER a good idea to bet the river with me. I always have you beat!!!

In all seriousness, I am a HUGE fan of the check and call here. I really am going to write that atrticle one of these days to explain it.........

[2Tone]

Here's one of the reasons I don't like multitableling. If I play a single table, and have a feel for my opponent, that will make a big difference on whether I bet it or not. At Party 2/4, I assume that the results will be the first or third option, and bet unless the player in question has shown himself to be crafty and/or tight. In B&M 3/6, I'm much more likely to check/call.

[Talking Poker]

I believe by betting here, as opposed to checking and calling, you are costing yourself money.

Simply put...

If you bet:
If he has nothing, he folds. You win 0 more bets.
If he has you beat, he raises, you call, and you lose 2 bets.

If you check:
If he has nothing, he might fold (no difference than above), but he may bluff at it, winning you 1 extra bet.
If he has you beat, he bets, you call, and you lose 1 bet, as opposed to the 2 above.

The only way betting is a more profitable play is when you bet and he calls with a hand weaker than your top pair. I believe this will happen far less often than the other scenarios above that earn you (or save you) one more bet.

That's the check and call in a nutshell.

[Zybomb]

This situation would change completely, in a NL game, or depending on your position. If you have fired twice and received two calls, and your opponent checks again on the river, a check back is obvious with TP. More than likely your opponent would of check called the flop then check raised the turn with a big hand, but you never know. The problem if you are the first to bet in a NL game, and you have fired twice and received two calls and then check the river, is this shows weakness. It may entice your opponent to make a substaintial bet...of course now what it depends on is have any of the potential draws hit, pre flop action, and the hand you have originally put him on... is 2 pair a realistic hand based on the preflop action? Would an opponent slow play 2 pair all the way to the river (i/e what draws were out there), did any of the drawing hands hit? Is this opponent likely to call to the river with 2nd pair (or a PP under top pair). There are a lot of things to consider, which makes me think there is not one right or wrong answer, it depends on the situation

Oh yea, just joined the forum, so whats up everyone

[Eman885]

I would check-call here because if you have the best hand the player most likely wont call your bet. Also if you put your opponent on a draw and you know he missed and wont call your bet, you can check to him hoping for him to bluff. If you get raised you are most likely beat so checking would save a bet there. Anyway thats how i usually play the river.

[ChipFish]

Each hand is always situational, but I don't understand the logic.
Someone please explain why an opponent who won't call your bet is a bad thing.

[Talking Poker]

What he means is if you bet, he's going to fold, so you gain 0 more bets and don't get the information of seeing his cards because there was a showdown. If you check and he checks, you lose nothing (because he would have folded). you also gain the chance that he will bluff at the pot, which will earn you one more bet when you call with the winner.

[tazmision89]

Ditto!

Depends on what happened pre-flop, flop and turn.

[SirFWALGMan]

I think checking the river applies even more so in NL. I had position on a guy with AA. I 3x pre-flop and like 4 people are in. The flop is K3x, so I throw out a bet. The next card is a low card. He bets, I call. The river makes a possible flush, he checks. I think I am beat, and I am pretty sure he is not going to fold if I put a big bet in. So I check. It turns out he had K3 and flopped two pair on me. Oh well. What can you do about that? So TPTK is definatly a good check on the river in NL I would think.. unless you are pure bluffing..

[Zybomb]

I was saying when you have position, a check back is obvious with TP (especially without top kicker), however if you are first to act it changes everything. If you have fired twice and received two calls, a check could be dangerous, because it shows weakness and may entice your opponent to make a large bet into the bet (with or without anything) then you are faced with a tough decision. As always it depends on the the action through out the hand, and what the board shows.

[junYUN]

i probably would never check if i've led out and been called on the flop and turn, if i was facing an agressive player. checking the river and your opponent making a big bet (pot sized?) puts you to a gut wrenching decision. however a tight/rock type player i will probably check-call unless i think he hit his draw..in which case i will fold.

[ChipFish]

I don't agree.
I don't want to see a showdown unless I have the nuts.

[Talking Poker]

If this is true, you are costing yourself money.

I'm talking about LIMIT here, btw. Using the check and call on the river with medium strength hands increases your earn rate. Period.