The Suck Bet. This is the phrase coined by Dan Harrington in his seminal no-limt holdem tournament books, Harrington on Holdem, Volumes 1-3, for the move used when you believe you have the best hand at the river, but you want to try to get your opponent to commit a bit more chips to the hand by calling your bet. You know if you move it allin, he is going to fold because his hand isn't that great. You also know that if you check, he will check behind, and you won't make any extra money out of the hand. Instead, you want to try to pick an amount of money to bet on the river that is large enough for you to make it worthwhile to make the bet in the first place, but small enough that your opponent will be willing to pay it off just to make sure you are in fact ahead. Curiously, in this sense the suck bet is simultaneously a trap bet and a value bet at the same time, in that you are trying to both bet low enough to trick your opponent into paying you to see your hand, but also trying to bet for value what you are fairly sure is the best hand right now.
I tend to have a fairly regular range in terms of the size of the suck bets I like to try to lay on people when I know I'm ahead. Of course, if I think someone will call an allin push from me, then that's what I'm doing, period. But, when I think I'm probably ahead, especially where I have already thrown in some slow-playage earlier in the hand to plant the idea in my opponent's mind that I might be bluffing or just weak in the hand, I usually try to target my suck bets at between 40-60% of the current pot size at the river. This is for two key reasons: First, around half the size of the curent pot is usually a sufficient enough size by the time the river hits that it will represent a significant addition to my stack if my opponent calls. I don't want to be dilly dallying with things like suck bets if I'm only going to add an extra 5% or something to the pot. And secondly, I like the 40-60% of the pot range for my suck bets because this is usually small enough that it entices many opponents to go ahead and pay me off, in situations where if I was moving allin, or even betting the full pot, they would reluctantly fold.

So, for example, at left you can see a situation where I have top pair top kicker with big slick at the river, on a board that contains no draws other than the unlikely QJ for the straight, a straight which would have required my opponent to have called my preflop raise with an easily-dominated hand preflop, so I'm not realistically worried there. With a current pot size of 750 chips, I want to get my opponent to pay me off here with what is probably either top pair lower kicker, or some other kind of board pair. So, as you can see, I hit the guy with a 450 chip bet. It is deceptively tricky because for only another 450 chips out of his 5500-chip stack, he can make sure I am ahead, and hopefully make a nice call to win another decent pot early. Here, he called my suck bet, and lost with his underpair to my TPTK.
The suck bet can also work against a river bet from your opponent, as seen here at left. Here, my opponent bet 720 chips into a 1380-chip pot at the river, and I went for the reraiso 1800. Sure I could have moved him allin here, but I figured I would have lost him with that strong move, so instead I went for just a bit more than a minraise. Just enough to make me happy when he calls, yet just little enough to get the call that I want from him. That's the idea with the suck bet -- like the end result of this particular hand, make the guy call you even while he is typing in "I'll call and pay you." The guy knows he's going to lose, but he just can't bring himself to fold whatever he's got in his hand for the size bet that I've thrown at him on the river.
The Suck Bet
Reader Comments
(Page 1)2. another benefit of a smaller suck bet is the possibility that an aggressive player will see it as weak and raise you for more than you could've gotten him to call with a medium sized bet. i don't remember if action dan had a different name for that or not.
for example, last night playing in a SNG, i was in a hand with a loose-aggressive player, and i flopped a set. he had position on me, and i made some weak bets along the way to build up a decent size pot. on the river, confident i still had the best hand, i put in my suck bet of about 25-30% of the pot, expecting him to raise (as he had made a trend of stealing pots on the river earlier in the game). he fell for the trap and raised, and i came back over the top and nearly doubled-up.
Posted at 11:06PM on Dec 28th 2006 by caspernene








1. I'm not sure your examples are prime.
I think a better example is this:
An opponent is drawing to a flush and obviously missed (maybe he is holding a suited ace with a baby pair), you have TPTK and make a bet of 20% of pot. He calls your weakish bet. You have essential sucked him in to calling you(or possibly inducing him to bluff). A display of any more strength on your part and he would have folded anyhow.
Your examples using TPTK against weak kickers and middle pairs seem more like pure value bets to me-- especially betting 40-60%. In the second example, your opponent came out strong on the river, and you have raised him by more than double. He is betting strong and might be betting a lower flush or medium strength hand for value. Maybe he is already prepared to go all the way.
I think a suck bet is a lot more subtle than your examples, and you aren't giving us the whole picture with hand histories. I'm not sure your examples represent the spirit of what a suck bet is trying to accomplish.
Posted at 2:34PM on Dec 28th 2006 by joshman