The River Value Min-Raise

I’m surprised this TAG opponent didn’t reraise preflop.
Also, did you check the turn to keep the pot small, or did you want to induce a bet from him?

Does this mean that you would double barrel and eventually triple barrel with any hand that doesn’t have any showdown value?

What do you think he would do with QJ? You say you’d fold to a raise, but how big would that be? Would you fold to a minraise?

Ed, do you take the check turn-bet river line with bluffs often too? I find that often tags will call the turn with a small pair suspecting a double barrel, but tend to fold more to the check turn-bet river since they’ll interpret that frequently as a pot-controlling line with a stronger range.

From my observations, I don’t think too many tags at these levels take the bet-check-bet line as a bluff, but many double barrel here quite a bit, so that may have the effect of tag villains calling us more on turns than rivers if we lack history. An exception would be if villain was a passive tag who does not read hands very well; in that case, I would take your line often, as villain isn’t trying to exploit our double barreling tendencies and will fold the turn a lot.

hmmm. I do this river minraise too sometimes but usually in unraised pots with hands weaker than top pair. vs LP players I think that you can get three streets of value with this type of hand so single, double and river barrel. versus players who have TAG preflop stats but don’t play postflop aggressively I think this is a pretty good line. Double barreling is less good vs this type for two reasons
(a) he’s calls tight, may very well fold these jacks to the double barrel and when you bet top pair here and get called you’re up against a pretty strong range usually
(b) he’s predictable so you don’t have to balance your range as much
(need for balance being reason why double barrel is standard at tougher stakes vs thinking TAGS)

vs a loose passive player I think this play can be good sometimes too but as aforementioned, more often in unraised pots when I expect their holding to be as weak as ace high miss or something. with KQ vs LP I just valuetown three small bets (make sure they aren’t too big but don’t make three tiny bets a la bad players)

To FatedEquity

I think it should be emphasized that this play is a read dependent one to be used predominantly vs a single player type: someone with TAG stats who nevertheless plays postflop too passively.

its optimal for two reasons

minor reason- balancing range is less important vs predictable/passive players

main reason- equity after he’s called our double barrel is not that great especially without history. this player type will not often call our double barrel without top pair. so in the example hand that Ed gave, after he calls the second bet we don’t do too great vs his range (and draws are less likely too because of his stricter preflop standards and the board is so uncoordinated) so basically QJ, KQ, and AQ form the biggest part of his range I think.

From a metagame perspective double barreling all the time vs this player type is fine. he’ll fold too much and if he adjusts and calls wider you can valuetown him with Top pair type hands too. BUT without history vs this playertype I like ed’s play best. TAGfish will often call with medium strength hand here, fold to a turn bet BUT if checked to will make a very readable bet on the river that can be raised with confidence.

The River Value Min-Raise · Professional Texas Hold’em Tips and Strategy from Noted Poker Authority…

Full Tilt, $0.50/$1 NL Hold’em Cash Game, 5 Players…

…snip…
Ed, do you take the check turn-bet river line with bluffs often too? I find that often tags will call the turn with a small pair suspecting a double barrel, but tend to fold more to the check turn-bet river since they’ll interpret that frequently as a pot-controlling line with a stronger range.

From my observations, I don’t think too many tags at these levels take the bet-check-bet line as a bluff, but many double barrel here quite a bit,
…snip…

I use both, but the turn bet is a stronger line. Particularly if you have been seen betting 3 streets of value with a top pair sort of hand.

Checking the turn deleverages the river bet. In a NL100 game, if you bet $20 on the turn with $70 behind, you are making a much more threatening bet than betting $20 on the river where the price is fixed. As Ed has pointed out to me in the past, loose players call this river bet a lot. Tight players give you more credit.

On another note, it is worth watching the players that float and bet the turn on a turn check. Often these guys are only betting monsters and bluffs on the turn an checking back their 1 pair sorts of hands. If you can make a note on these kinds of players, you can take them off their hand on the turn as they will typically have way more bluffs than monsters. If you watch strong players play, they will mix their play when looking for two streets. Sometimes checking back the flop with top pair, sometimes checking the turn, and sometimes betting the flop and turn then checking the river. This isn’t so important at the lower limits where there is very little balance. I’ve been adding in checking back some of my weaker top pairs and I do find that I get paid a lot more on later streets. Something worth experimenting with.

………..
“he’s predictable so you don’t have to balance your range as much
(need for balance being reason why double barrel is standard at tougher stakes vs thinking TAGS)”
…………….
Basically I do not agree.
I do quiet opposite with $.
I do balance my range much more against predictable opponents vs unpredictable opponents.
When I play against maniacs balancing is the last thing on my mind.
The act of balancing is not about standards but about good spots and hows to do or not .
Balancing for me is more about strategy than just tactics.

OK- “”he’s predictable so you don’t have to”- but if you don’t do it you miss very profitable opportunities.
You miss more against predictable opponnet vs unpredictable.
Why?
The starting point is:
1.Predictable opponent give you opportunity to determine their range.
The consequence of point Nr 1 is:
2.Predictable opponent give you opportunity to choose right spots and how to balance your range.
3.Predictable opponent give you opportunity to play optimum for your balanced range?.

By the way SUpa MaRio SwiNg Yo ARmS,How you play your top,middle and bottom of your “perfectly” balanced hand range against unpredictable opponents vs predictable TAGs?

A few thoughts that I want to bounce off as tangents…

So let’s say your opponent has a,q in this spot and is calling for value…you min raise the river..he’s pry not reraising there b/c he might be worried you backed your way into two pair or caught a set right? I recall you saying you were going to fold to a raise.

Also, against a loose opponent you say you’re firing all three streets b/c a loose opponent will pay you off with a wider range. Isn’t it also true that loose opponents tend to catch more frequently on you but also bluff more often? Ergo, a fairly loose opponent open shoves the river after you min raise following the same line…are you giving that loose opponent credit or are you calling and hoping your pair is good and that he didn’t catch some silly two pair? Could you classify which kinds of loose players you would call here vs. ones that you wouldn’t. Descriptions in terms of both stats and characteristics would be great.

On a side note…would any of you agree that the smaller limits 10 cent/25 cent NL are fairly nitty and opponents won’t pay you off as easily but they will draw/peel for smallish bets on just about any street. Ex: any two suited cards preflop for a standard raise and if villian flops a flush draw then they go with it thinking if they hit they can score big? It seems I’ve had a lot of trouble getting action on my good hands but getting smooth called by better (whether or not they are unimproved high cards) but then also having most of the draws catch when I have a PP. Thanks

I see it, but since I teach 5th grade grammar feel like I may have an unfair advantage. It is kind of funny.

lrdWov qkymjfxpdibq