Q&A #65: Limit Hold’em – Folding on the River in a Big Pot

Don't miss one article! Subscribe to the Full Feed RSS or get NPA in your inbox.

Don’t fold for one bet on the river in a big pot. That’s one of the best pieces of advice any limit hold ‘em player can get. Much money is lost by wanna-be pros when they fold good hands that “just have to be beaten” on the river (getting 15-to-1), only to find out that their opponent is from Mars and – oops – decided to bet bottom pair this time.

Like all rules, this one has exceptions. Trying to find the exceptions, however, can be a real minefield. Today, Matt thinks he’s found one.

I have a question about river play. My comments appear after the hand history:

Full Tilt Poker
Limit Holdem Ring game
Limit: $2/$4
9 players

Pre-flop: (9 players) Hero is Button with Q J
UTG folds, UTG+1 calls, MP1 calls, MP2 calls, MP3 calls, CO folds, Hero raises, SB folds, BB calls, UTG+1 calls, MP1 calls, MP2 calls, MP3 calls.

Flop: (12.5SB) 7 6 J (6 players)
BB checks, UTG+1 checks, MP1 bets, MP2 calls, MP3 folds, Hero calls, 2 folds.

Turn: (7.75BB) 9 (3 players)
MP1 bets, MP2 calls, Hero raises, MP1 calls, MP2 calls.

River: (13.75BB) 2 (3 players)
MP1 checks, MP2 bets, Hero folds…

MP1 is a fairly loose, aggressive player. MP2 is loose, passive, and completely predictable.
I know that it is almost never correct to fold on the river when the pot is big. However, as David Sklansky writes in his book Hold’em Poker, “there are times when your opponent can’t be bluffing and must beat your hand. When this happens, do not let the fact you are getting 20-1 pot odds to influence you. You are 1000-1. Save your money” (69).

I’m 99% certain that the bettor has a flush or at least two pair. If I were against only one opponent, I would make a crying call. In this case, I have a second opponent who is perfectly capable of check-raising. Is this fold correct? What if the aggressive player bet out, the passive player called, and I was closing the action? Would a fold be justified in that case?

Matt, you’re playing with fire. But this time you might come out of it ok.

 Print :: Trackback :: Respond ::