2/5 river checkraise from recreational

2/5 river checkraise from recreational

2/5, weak passive table, hero has been running it over, but main villain in this hand just sat down an orbit or two ago. He's middle aged and been pretty active, assumed rec. He saw hero iso raise Q7o from the button and get two streets of value, as well as a few hands where hero raised and won with a c-bet or barrell

around 800 eff.

MP limps, hero on button raises K8cc to 25, villain in SB calls, BB calls.
Flop (100): 6s 6h 7c
checks around

Turn (100): 9s
checks to hero, bets 50, sb calls, others fold

River (200): Kh
V checks, hero bets 70, V thinks a bit and raises to 230, hero... ?

Wishing I'd just checked it back, but I'm feeling inclined to bluff catch. Boats are possible, but not that many recs are checking trips on the flop and then x/calling them on the turn. Also, I guess when rec's x/raise the river I'm inclined to either
A. assume they have the nuts, or
B. account for some spazziness, depending on player type

02 November 2024 at 09:23 AM
Reply...

27 Replies

5
w


Dont see you getting called very often on the river by much worse, id fold without a very strong read that he spazzes


River bet is really optimistic I don’t think we get called often enough by worse for this to be a good bet. Then situations like this where we get raised by a nutted hand and call make it a pretty bad bet.


by KRiBaH k

Purpose of cbetting in the flop?

We have no draws and flop favors villains range as well

We're playing our range, not our hand. Our hand isn't doing too poorly against our opponents' ranges. We have two overs, with backdoor straight and flush draws, we're in position, and all of our opponents have shown weakness, by limping or flatting pre.

By their actions, I would suspect they are also weak players who will under realize from OOP.

If we bet small and get raised, it's fine. We can fold to serious aggression, or call and possibly pick up equity on the turn. Otherwise, we stand to clean up some equity by getting some folds.

Reply...