Foxwoods $10k hand - what's your line?

[mosch]

The previous hands factored into my decision, so I'm going to start with those:

Setup hand #1:
I have 11,000 chips
5 seat has 4,000 chips
100/200 blinds
I got dealt AA in the SB. the 5 seat open-limps, and I raise to 1,000. the bb folds, and the 5 seat calls.

Flop: QT3
I bet 1500 looking to commit him right there.
he grants my wish and goes all-in. i call.
He turns over QT suited.

the turn and river bring no help. oh well.

Setup Hand 2:
A few hands after that he doubled up again, versus another player, with QQ versus AJ on a jack high board. He got 1/3 of his stacks in on the flop, and called-in on a somewhat scary turn card (put a flush out, I don't remember the action perfectly, but I know I didn't read anybody as having a completed flush)

The hand in question:
The five seat has gotten extremely loose, with random bursts of aggression and passiveness. The two seat has recently started picking up pots, and has only been snapped off from doing it once.

I get 55 on the button.

the two seat limps UTG, four seat limps, 5 seat limps, i limp, the small blind completes, the big blind checks.

Flop: Kc 7c 5h
checked to me, and I bet 500. the two seat and the 5 seat call.

Turn: 2s
checked to me and I hesitently bet 1,000. the two seat calls and the 5 seat raises to 3000. i go all-in, the two seat quickly mucks and the five seat quickly calls.

He turns over KK.

I've been second-guessing my whole 'play a big pot against the bad player' approach to this hand, trying to convince myself that if I'd just bet out strong at the beginning that a call or raise would've slowed me down and possibly left me in the game with maybe 5,000 chips. As such, I thought I'd post it and see what you guys say.

[aceragclubs]

Personally, I could never fold a set there. Maybe if i had a super strong read on the player as extra tight I could lay it down, but maybe not even then. Flopped sets on uncoordinated boards are tough to come by. Obviously you have the opposite read on him anyway. Based on the previous hand, I would think he would be more likely to have AK, K7 or a club draw. I think you played it correctly....poker sucks sometimes.

[theantelope]

Not that this would have made any difference given that the 5 seat had a higher set, but:

There's 1200 in the pot, and you bet 500 on the flop? And there are two clubs on the board? WTF? Anything less than 1200 is a crime against humanity.

[mosch]

The 500 was to try to get them to come over the top right there. I was really surprised when the two seat didn't, as I'd seen him make that play agaist other opponents 100% of the time.

[MLG]

crappy luck. good thought process, good execution, impossible situation. I cannot see getting away from set over set, especially against this type of player.

[JaBlue]

[ QUOTE ]
Not that this would have made any difference given that the 5 seat had a higher set, but:

There's 1200 in the pot, and you bet 500 on the flop? And there are two clubs on the board? WTF? Anything less than 1200 is a crime against humanity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh wow. I'm assuming your the guy who always folds to me when a 3-flush comes?

[italianstang]

Set over set, you're screwed, just get up from the table and walk to the bar.

[theantelope]

What does my wanting to bet the pot on a flop like that have anything to do with how I would play with a three-flush on-board? (hint: It has nothing to do with it.)

[JaBlue]

When you say that anything less than betting the pot with a two-flush on board is a crime against humanity, its pretty easy to understand my comment.

[theantelope]

First of all, I realize my initial post was unclear. My intended message was that underbetting the pot in almost any situation is a bad idea. And the two clubs made it worse.

But I still don't see how that has anything to do with how I'd react to a three-flush. And you haven't in any way addressed that, despite my request. If you do, indeed, attempt to address it, I'm sure you'll say something that isn't true. Because, quite simply, I (a) do advocate betting at least the pot, and (b) don't "always" (or, even close to always) fold when a three-flush comes.

[Hint: Just because some people who would bet the pot with a two-flush on board do so for particular reasons does not mean that everyone who bets the pot with a two-flush on board does so for those same reasons. And even if they do so for the same reasons, that does not mean they would react in even remotely the same way to the three-flush].

[JaBlue]

OK let me end this. First of all, saying that betting anything less than the pot with two clubs on board is a crime against humanity is way off base. You're right, though: if you always bet the pot, your opponents will notice when you don't do so. However, there is no need to always bet the pot. Most good players, in fact, do not always bet the pot. Poker isn't a game that you can play formulaicly. You can't say "OK every time I have a strong holding I'm going to be the pot." You're going to get burned.

PS I said what I did because the tone of your post was weak-tight.

[theantelope]

Hmm.. I didn't say "always bet the pot," did I?

You still haven't backed up your initial contention about the three-flush (or even tried, really).

And I don't see how anything I suggested would lead one to believe I would advocate a weak-tight strategy in general, if ever.

All of that aside--I agree with what you said about not always taking the same action in the same situation. But, by definition, you shouldn't ever make a -EV play (even if it's for the sake of 'varying your play').

[mosch]

The underbets weren't for the sake of varying my play.