In position at the river, we generally value bet when our hand is a favourite if we're called. But if we're out of position, because we now have events to occur behind us, that's not always the case. Sometimes we should always bet after we are an underdog if called if an event may happen behind us in an effort to cost us more expectation than if we had checked.

A drunk and wild tourist sitting immediately to my right who had me covered raised to $15 from under the gun in a $2-$5 no-limit hold’em game. Next to act, holding the A J, $500 deep, I contemplated three-betting. Several thoughts caused me to flat. I had little fold equity against a highly aggressive opponent I couldn’t read, and the probabilities I MIGHT be dominated by a hand yet to behave were high. The risk that someone opponent held A-K, A-Q, A-A, K-K, Q-Q, or J-J was about 3.15 percent. Collectively, with seven opponents yet to act, it was over 20 percent that I USED TO BE dominated. Additionally, I had a hand that played well against the weaker portions of my opponents’ ranges, making letting those hands call add value to my holding.

It folded around to the button, an opponent who I’d only played about 15 hands with and that had doubled through me in his third hand, when he called my under-the-gun raise with Q-J offsuit. He made it $45. I wasn’t thrilled in regards to the three-bet, but Mr. Button indicated looseness when he called an under-the-gun raise from me with Q-J offsuit at the hand he stacked me. That said, I USED TO BE unsure of his three-bet range. However, most players widen their raising range at the button, particularly when the unique raiser is wild and aggressive. Both blinds folded, Mr. Wild Drunk called, and that i called. There has been about $140 within the pot.

The flop came the A 7 2, giving me top pair, jack kicker and a backdoor nut-flush draw. Mr. Wild Drunk knuckled, and that i checked behind him, fully expecting Mr. Button to bet. He didn’t disappoint and bet $75. Mr. Wild Drunk called. I flatted, feeling there has been some chance I held the most efficient hand, but I wasn’t hooked in to my holding.

The Q turned. Once again, Mr. Wild Drunk checked to me and that i knuckled behind him. Mr. Button contemplated and checked. I USED TO BE still unsure of his range. Was he checking A-K, frightened of A-Q, checking for pot control? Or did he have a wired pair and bet the flop to symbolize an ace? Could he have a non-standard three-bet hand he was just playing aggressively at the button? I ASSUMED all were possibilities.

The river delivered the 5, a card unlikely to assist anyone. Mr. Wild Drunk checked, and that i thought of my best play. If Mr. Button held A-K, he was going to worth bet. I didn’t think he would bet an underpair. I also felt he might bluff if I checked. With $365 currently within the pot, any value bet or bluff was likely going to be half pot or more. And what about Mr. Wild Drunk? He wasn’t going to be folding any ace last to act, even one with a poor kicker.

It was a dilemma. If I bet, I lost the worth of picking off Mr. Button’s bluffs, but picked up the decision from Mr. Wild Drunk. Additionally, most of Mr. Button’s calling range can be A-K, a hand which beat me. I didn’t think that any river bet of mine can be called over 50 percent of the time by a weaker hand. But, if I checked and Mr. Button bet, I MIGHT call. Despite the fact that Mr. Wild Drunk called, I'D still call because I felt Mr. Wild Drunk virtually couldn’t have me beat in response to how he had played his hand, and that i would still beat Mr. Button’s bluff range.

Since my river play was about getting whatever showdown equity my hand-held from the pot as cost-effectively as possible versus acquiring positive expected value (EV) from a bet, the lower the volume I shelled out to procure my hand’s showdown equity, the greater my value. I WISHED to make a gamble that will seem to be legitimate, block any bluffs, and include more hands in my opponent’s calling range to maximise whatever value the bet might create.

I bet $125, about one-third pot. I felt it might be read as being legitimate sizing. I loathed the outcome when Mr. Button called, and Mr. Wild Drunk folded. I turned my A J over, Mr. Button flipped over A-K, and the dealer shoved him the pot.

The hand speaks to considering how a hand is probably going to play out, and making an effort to modify the way it plays together with your actions. By betting $125, I “set the size” of the bet and didn’t put myself in a situation of either getting bluffed or calling a larger bet. The lost EV of the bet being called by Mr. Button and the lack of the price of calling his bluffing range was a minimum of partially compensated by the scenarios where Mr. Button would have folded and Mr. Wild Drunk would have called with an inferior hand. That said, I also lost less value the days I river-called Mr. Button value bets.

The bet-sizing issue is a huge part of why no-limit is way harder than limit. It creates many complex issues that just don’t exist in limit. Thinking ahead and taking stack sizes and estimated betting sizes into consideration should alter your strategy significantly. Be sure you think through how the hand is probably going to play with different portions of the variability of your opponent(s) and the way best to regulate to these circumstances before making your strategic decision.

And when you can do this effectively, you’re to your solution to world-class play. ♠

Roy Cooke played poker professionally for 16 years previous to becoming a successful Las Vegas Real Estate Broker/Salesman. If you happen to wish any details about Real Estate matters-including purchase, sale or mortgage his office number is 702-376-1515 or Roy’s e-mail is RealtyAce@aol.com. His website is www.RoyCooke.com. Roy’s blogs and poker tips are at www.RoyCookePokerlv.com. You may as well find him on Facebook or Twitter @RealRoyCooke

Read More... [Source: CardPlayer Poker News]