shipitfish | Remember: A River Check-Raise from a Tight Player Is Never a Bluff

I mentioned a few months ago that I suffered some a lot of losses one weekend in March. This is another post about some bad play I made in one of those hands. This hand took place at 02:00 on Sunday 12 March 2006.

I was hanging out with W.D. on Full Tilt, playing nine-handed NL HE as that's what he prefered at the time. I don't usually play nine-handed online; I am primarily a six-handed player. But, regardless of how many hands were dealt, I played this hand terribly.

The game was $1/$2 blind, $200 maximum buy-in NL HE. I was on the button with $152. (I was stupidly playing short stacked because I didn't have more money on the site at the moment.) Ahead of me in middle position, a somewhat agressive player with $252 limped. A passive player (with $150) limped. W.D. (with $325) limped behind them. I had K T and decided to limp as well. The small blind, a very tight player called Silly Sally (with $143) completed. The big blind checked. We saw a flop of 6 A 5 with $11 in the pot (post-rake).

The flop checked around. I can't fault my play here. I had nothing, but in a field like that, I am likely to be called by hands like 78.

The turn was the A. Silly Sally in the SB checked again, and our aggressive player bets $2. I read this as a typical online probe bet. Many aggressive online players bluff the minimum. They seem to hope multi-tablers won't see that the bet is that small and fold things like middle pair.

Behind him, the passive player called (likely with a 6 or some draw), and W.D. called. With $16 in the pot, I am probably up against a six and some draws. I have the nut flush draw, and decide that a semi-bluff is warranted, and make it $15 to go.

Months later, I still don't think the semi-bluff is wrong there. I have major weakness in front of me, and even if the draws call, they may be flush draws, against which I have the best hand and huge implied odds. A six would be hard pressed to call.

Silly Sally, in the SB, is my only caller. If I'd been playing my best game, this should have easily shut me down no matter what came on the river. Sally, a conservative player, has checked twice, and now called a large bet. She has played the hand cagily, but the most obvious hand she could have is 66. Conservative players usually go for a check-raise with a set (a bad play, in my opinion), and when she filled up, there is even more reason to slow play because it is unlikely someone has an Ace.

I hit my “worst“ card, a 9. Making the flush here is awful, but Sally even gave me an out; she checked it to me. I “value-bet” $25, and she immediately check-raised all-in for $100 more. I thought for my full time allotment, but it did me no good. I ignored the point that a conservative player would not call me on the turn with merely a flush draw on a paired board (she wouldn't), and decided she had made a weaker flush and called.

She didn't have the hand she represented throughout the hand — 66 — but rather A 5. Her play seems wrong to me on the flop (check-raising two pair in that spot is something I'd only do if a truly hyper-aggressive player is in the pot), but there is no question that my play was just abysmal. I should have had my wits about me and just checked the river. It would have been annoying to see a smaller made flush in her hand, but I really have to give her credit for a monster on the turn. I hadn't once seen her call with a draw without odds, especially out of position, so there is no way she calls on the turn without at least trip aces. Even if I give her a naked Ace on the turn, I have to give her credit for A9 on the river and fold.

Well, Sally, you earned that $100 bucks with your patient play. Please enjoy a fine meal on me and my donkey play.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I don't think I could ever lay that down. NL HE cash games just don't agree with me.

Not only do you need to lay that down in any game, you have to be ready to check the river instead of betting it, which was my fundamental mistake.

i disagree, there's definitely room to value bet the nut flush on that board. you're getting called by a lot of hands that you're beating.

your only mistake was the turn semi-bluff IMO. laying down to the check-raise on a paired board is debatable and definitely read dependant. bad players would check-raise lower flushes, the straight, and possibly even a naked A. it's not definitely a full house.

your opponent played the hand terribly.

Why do you think the semi-bluff on the turn was bad? The field has checked to me twice, and it seems a no brainer because the bet might pick up the pot most of the time. I mean, I figure second pair would have bet the turn more than likely when the ace pairs.

There's no question that Sally played the hand terribly. The thing is, I have to be very read focused here. While you are right, the “average” player is capable even of check-raising a weaker flush, she wasn't average. I'd observed her playing extremely tight, and she isn't check-raising with anything but a full house. She would have bet out the flush, so I can make an argument for raising when she bets out, but I think I should have been prepared to fold for a check-raise, or I shouldn't have bet the river.

I want to be clear: I agree with your analysis when the player is just someone I've sat down in a online $1/$2 game with minutes before, but I'd developed a read on how tight she played and her unwillingness to put a lot of chips in the pot without a true lock. I am sure she was (at least during that session), incapable of check-raising me without at full-house holding.

turn semi-bluff: basically, i think it's a risk-reward thing. you have no nut outs and are getting a good price to call.

you're putting up $15 to win $16. you make your flush about 20% of the time, so you need to take it down around, what? 25% of the time to make the play even money. more if you consider the times that your flush is no good. i didn't do any math here...i'm just winging it. anyway, i think that against a passive field you're going to get called too often, especially considering the donk-bet and two callers.

if the donk-bettor had been to your immediate right and there had been no callers, then that would probably be a different story.

as it was, just calling and seeing the river is superior in my opinion.

well.. considering that u already put so much money in the pot it's super tough to lay that one down.. Especially when u actually got what u were drawing all this time..
I have the same problem :)

But I would've think for quite a while before calling if tight player check reraised me so quickly.
I mean timing is one of the most essential things in poker - especially online poker.
Also to slow play 2 pair on flop - thats just gambling :P

it paid off though.. bus as Sklansky loves to note - on the long run those people loose money. Always.

Oh, I don't think it's a tough lay down at all. I'm calling with worse than 2-to-1 when I'm clearly beat. Indeed, the best play is to check on the river so as not to be bluffed off the best hand, if I think she's capable of a check-raise bluff at all. I could argue that value-betting the river is right, because she calls with any flush of her own and only check-raises when she's full.

I don't see why she played it so horribly. She was first to act in a multi-way unraised pot, where it was very likely that somebody had hit the board (an A flopped). What's wrong with her check? I would check that and feel that somebody would just have to bet that.

Again, on the turn, I think she played it well. She figured that all those people wouldn't be able to help but take a stab at the pot. Plus, she had the near nuts, so any risk at slowplaying is gone. Cold calling the raise is always a bit odd, but raising is almost certainly going to take that thing down. Also, somebody with the trips and a bad kicker might really just want to call that $16 looking to pick off a bluff, but not wanting to make the pot any bigger, with just the trips.

And, why not CR the river? The hero had shown strength, so it's fine to check to him once more.

I think checking on the flop from the SB is a mistake (I also never play A-little off anyway, even for an SB complete). She can't be sure an ace will bet either (there were some passive players in the pot), and they might hit a better two pair on the turn. The hand is too vulnerable to check. After the turn, she played it well; the mistakes were all mine thereafter.

Remember: A River Check-Raise from a Tight Player Is Never a Bluff

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

so what she checked two pair on the flop

Re: so what she checked two pair on the flop