Read an interesting article by Mike Caro in this months edition of Bluff Australasia, which I thought was really relevant to my play. Essentially, it was a simplification of scenarios to demonstrate why you shouldn’t bet mediocre hands on the river. If I recall correctly, it goes something like this.
Assume we are playing a game of poker using a deck with only three cards … As, Ks, and Qs. We get dealt one card each, and no draws. Lets say we get Ks, and the question is should we bet. Ignoring bluffs for the moment, the answer should always be no – becuase the As is always calling as the best possible card, and the Qs is always folding as the worst possible card. Hence there is no value in betting.
Obviously bluffing would come into the equation – perhaps the Qs may check raise for deception now and again to get the Ks to lay down, but in the long run the implications of this are pretty clear. So extrapolating this principle out to the full deck, its pretty clear why you shouldnt bet marginal hands on the river. It’s an interesting concept, becuase I think the river is my weakest street – I think I lose value in a lot of situations and perhaps overplay in others. A useful concept to keep in mind.
March 16, 2008 at 4:20 am |
Thats a very nice simplification and helps to remind you of the concept, but depending on the level your playing I think, betting some marginal hands can be profitable. In $5 NL for instance, you can be called many times by middle pair, and after awhile, you start to bet your TP with a reasonable kicker. You do have to be careful though, and most of the time, I’ll check and call a modest bet instead of firing myself, as firing with a mediocre hand and being faced with a raise is a much tricker position then checking, and facing a bet.
I very rarely bet a completed draw on the river though, unless its the nuts.