River Betting

I've had an up-and-down but generally productive couple of days at the tables. My bankroll, such as it is, is at the highest level ever, 280% of my original buy-in at the site.

I think river betting is my main problem, and the source of many many bad bets. In a multi-way pot on the river, which is not at all uncommon even at the shorthanded tables, you have to give credit to the draws. I just bet on a river reading 5-6-7-9-T with second pair, fourth kicker. That may sound idiotic but the hand went like this:

No raise pre-flop, I hold J9s. Flop is 5-6-7, one bet, everyone calls. I turn top pair, check from the blinds, and... no one bets. The ten comes, I bet, two players fold, and the third one calls with the nut straight.

It only cost me one bet, but it could have been zero. If for some reason he checked down a straight, I'd be surprised but lose nothing. If I checked, and the last player bet, I'd almost certainly fold.

Mike Caro says "your opponents have a calling reflex." They want to call. Betting out on the river is giving them a chance to do that.

Now, I've been thinking a lot about Lederer's suggested style - check-raise the flop almost every time heads up - and while I think it's of limited usefulness in my games, the core of the argument is solid. If you bet, they have an easy decision: fold with nothing and leave you a small pot, raise with the good stuff to put you back on your heels, and call if you're just not certain.

By checking, they have to make that same decision.

Another great quote from Super/System 2 (source of the Caro quote, as I remember) is "betting for value is what it's all about." Doyle Brunson says it in his no limit chapter, and I'm convinced it's even more true in fixed-limit games. If you hold A9 and the board is A 6 3, you have to bet. If you don't, your tight

Now, I just had a situation where betting the river made sense, even though I could lose. The board read:

A ♠ J ♠ 8♠ T ♦ Q ♠

There was no pre-flop raise and the flop and turn were checked around.

I was in the big blind with:

9 ♦ T ♠

Despite this very weak hand, I had the second nut flush on the river. But there's more to it. The only possible hand I could lose to was K♠-x. I didn't think that was out there for the following reasons:

There were some aggressive players who would have bet a draw to the nuts earlier, especially with a passive table.

Anyone holding a king just rivered a straight, and may see my bet as a steal at the pot from early position.

It's entirely possible that someone has another flush card in their hand and just can't beat to not call me, even though they know they probably have the worst of it; after all it's only one river bet with some chance I'm bluffing at a small pot.

I believe Sklansky said that if you bet the river when you have a 50/50 chance of winning, you're in trouble. Because of the positional disadvantage here, I'll get raised (and need to call) only by the cinch hand. I need to be above 50% when called to make this play. But I was in this case. However, the 2nd pair, 4th kicker situation is terrible, and I'm lucky I didn't get raised on the end. Only an extreme timid opponent saved me there, but I still felt silly.