in relation to the "hand reading exercise" thread

[Chopper]

here is the hand in question...

$10NL (8 Players)
Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

saw flop|saw showdown

UTG+1 ($10)
MP1 ($11.35)
MP2 ($9.80)
CO ($16.10)
Button ($3.40)
SB ($10.25)
BB ($10)
Hero ($10.90)

Preflop: Hero is UTG
Hero calls $0.10, 3 folds, CO calls $0.10, 1 fold, SB completes, BB raises to $0.6, Hero calls $0.40, CO calls $0.40, SB folds.

Flop: ($1.70) 8d , 4s, 3h (3 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $0.85, CO folds, BB calls $0.85.

Turn: ($3.40) Ts (2 players)
BB checks, Hero checks.

River: ($3.40) 7d (2 players)
BB checks, Hero checks.

Final Pot: $3.40

PELION SAYS:

Id bet overcards and just check it down with a pair. The key is that alot of his range is Ax type stuff that beats our overcards but not our pairs. Also medium PPs are probably calling a bet after the weakness we have shown so far anyway so a bet with 66 doesnt really fold anything we beat and often gets called when we are behind (e.g. to 99).

If we have QJ we have no showdown value but he folds alot of his range to a bet so we bet. We bet however much we need to get him to fold overcards but we assume he will still call with good hands so we dont go crazy. $1.50 should do it.

(We also bet more on the flop )

edit: For the same reasons we probably check AK here because it beats all the A high hands anyway and pairs probably call us after this line.

i seem to do the reverse. and need to fix this.

i feel that if we are ahead we SHOULD bet and extract value. if we are behind, why put more money in a losing pot? i kind of see the point, but need to understand the concept.

why do we bluff with overcards here? is it to bump him off his overcards that DO beat ours because they "cant call our bet with overs"? and, if so, at 10NL arent we concerned that these guys call with anything that gets this far anyhow?

with a pair, assuming the former (that they cant fold), wouldnt we WANT to bet for value here? why check behind? is it because everyone on overs folds, and we only get callers from pairs+ that beat us?

i just dont understand why we dont bet...if we feel we are ahead here?

however, if we are oop...do we hope it checks through if we have 66? or do we bet/fold this river?

obviously, i tend to fire a lot of shit. help.

[Warpe]

For sake of argument, let's move a decimal point and assume stakes don't matter:

$100NL (8 Players)
Hand History Converter Tool from FlopTurnRiver.com (Format: FlopTurnRiver)

saw flop|saw showdown

UTG+1 ($100.00)
MP1 ($113.50)
MP2 ($98.00)
CO ($161.00)
Button ($34.00)
SB ($102.50)
BB ($100.00)
Hero ($109.00)

Preflop: Hero is UTG
Hero calls $1.00, 3 folds, CO calls $1.00, 1 fold, SB completes, BB raises to $6.00, Hero calls $4.00, CO calls $4.00, SB folds.

Flop: ($17.00) 8 , 4, 3 (3 players)
BB checks, Hero bets $8.50, CO folds, BB calls $8.50.

Turn: ($34.00) T (2 players)
BB checks, Hero checks.

River: ($34.00) 7 (2 players)
BB checks, Hero checks.

Final Pot: $34.00

[Pelion]

i just dont understand why we dont bet...if we feel we are ahead here?

It all comes down to whether or not you think they will call with a worse hand/ fold a better hand. You dont bluff when they wont fold a better hand. You dont value bet when they wont call with a worse hand. As for whether or not theyd call with overs here, thats a player dependent judgement call. My feeling is that they call the flop hoping to hit an A,K,Q whatever but arent actually intending to show down A high. If they are then you dont bluff them but you do value bet worse hands against them.

Heres a spot Fnord showed me a few days ago where we are pretty sure we are ahead but we shouldnt bet.

7 Card stud. [cards inside () are hole cards. Other cards are visible to all players.]

We have (AK)QQQQ(2). Villain has (xx)5 7 8 2 (x) and isnt completely retarded. We check.

DUCY?

[Chopper]

i think so, but i dont play a lot of 7-stud (never online) so, i will miss a lot of the finer points. but, as i see it...

its entirely possible he has/hit his str8flush. what i dont know is how common that is in 7-stud. in NLHE that would be rare (str8flsh over flush), and we would go stax with our A-high flush here i assume (using his cards as NLHE board).

but, this is where i need it beat into my head. why wouldnt we bet that in stud? only one conceivable hand beats us, yes? the rest we have beat.

actually, i guess it would be absolutely retarded (hence your comment) for villain to call w/o the str8flush, because its obvious we have quads.

granted, the original hand isnt quite that cut and dry, but i think i see the point. it just takes awhile. sometimes i feel like Joey Tribiani.

and this is a stupid technicality (i'm not trying to be a smartass here), but if we "value bet with worse hands," arent we still bluffing?

warpe,

i think it absolutely matters what stakes we are playing, as the 10NL players are far more likely to call with AK here than 100NL players. and that assumption could greatly shift our perceived equity/FE in the pot. granted, at 100, i'm sure there would have been more activity throughout the hand.

[Pelion]

No the original hand is far more murky. The 7 stud hand is just to illustrate the concept. In hold'em they/we can always be on a total bluff even if the chance is really small so unless we hold the nuts/ antinuts then we have to use our judgement.

(yes I did just make up a word).