A Hand Against Roy Cooke

[Kevin J]

This hand generated some discussion in one of my local card rooms. It was played by a Chicago local against Roy Cooke. I thought it was interesting. Here's the hand as I understand it.

The Chicago local raised UTG with AQ and Roy made it 3 bets from late position. Heads-up.

The flop came AXX. Local checked, Roy bet, local called.

The turn was a rag. Local checked, Roy bet, local called.

The river was a K. Local checked, Roy bet, local called and lost to KK.

The first question is, did the Chicago local make a bad check on the turn? I didn't necessarily think so. I believe he should've made whichever play gets Roy to put another bet in. If checking accomplishes this, then fine.

The next question is, did Roy make a bad bet on the turn? Roy is either safely ahead or drawing very thin with KK, so is there any compelling reason for him to bet? Then again, the Chicago local was unkown to him. Roy could've been thinking, "I'm gonna call the river if I check, so why not bet? If he's got QQ or a worse hand, I'll charge him to draw". What does everyone else think?

The third question is, what should the Chicago local have done after Roy bet the turn? A top Chicago pro, thought check/raising the flop was in order. Failing that, check/raising the turn was a MUST in his opinion. His reasoning was that the Chicago local should've been content to take the pot at any point. How can Roy make a bad bet on the turn, when he never gets properly punished for it?

So another question is, should the Chicago local be looking to take this pot down right away? Or should he try and get Roy to put in as much "bad" money as possible? Don't forget, there's still a small chance the Chicago local is beat, although this is probably not something to be overly afraid of. I suppose there's a point in every hand, where you need to balance the importance between winning the pot and gaining value for your hand. Was that balance tipped here against a two-out hand?


Anyway, I thought the hand was interesting and might generate some discussion here.

[mikelow]

Roy sucked out (on a two-outer), but there were check-raises missed on both the turn and flop.

[Manzanita]

Kevin,

I think that Roy played his hand well. I like his bet on the turn. My guess is that he planned to check down the river if he failed to improve.

The Chicago local could have been more aggressive on the flop by either betting out or check-raising Roy; I don't think that his hand was strong enough to wait until the turn to put in a raise.

-- Manzanita

[Gabe]

It is hard to comment on how the hand was played without knowing what the xx or rag really were. If they really were totally unrelated and could not conceivably relate to one of the players hands, the man from Chicago should probably have bet the river, and maybe Cooke should have checked, the flop or turn. Are you sure he had KK, not JJ? I would certainly would not consider this hand interesting.

[gaylord focker]

Funny you posted, this, I was just talking with a friend of mine who recently got back from Vegas, and played in the 30-60 game at the Bellagio with Roy every day. He described his play as "skweaky tight", and said basically when he bets the flop you can be 90% sure he is ahead on the hand. Anyway if I held AQ I would just play it in a manner that I thought I could get the most amount of Roy's money in the pot, and if he happened to have AA or AK so be it. I think probably check raising the flop and betting the turn and the river would be best. Going for a check raise on the turn is an option, but I would be afraid he might check behind with a pocket pair, and I wouldnt want to lose a bet.

[gaylord focker]

"Roy sucked out (on a two-outer), but there were check-raises missed on both the turn and flop."


Do you mean the turn or the flop? I highly doubt Roy would fall for check raises on both the flop and the turn without an ace in his hand.

[soda]

I think Roy played the hand fine. It's usually correct to bet if checked to in a raise, reraise heads up pot like this. Heads up, Roy will likely call a river bet with KK if he checks the turn, so why not bet the turn and check down the river?

With the AQ, I'll sometimes check call here against a solid, aggressive three bettor too. If I checkraise and the person lays down the 2 outer, then I lose money. Check calling is often correct with just 7 SBs in the pot. Also, if your opponent does not bet/raise the river enough with 1 pair, but calls a lot, I'd bet the river for value here. Usually, a bet out of nowhere on the end is called. Of course, if Roy had AK and the Chicago local made this play, there is a very good chance Roy would value raise. Which, may be why the player check called the river also.

All in all, I think the hand was played well by both players. Roy just got lucky on this one, but not because of a mistake by the Chicago player - IMO.

soda

[skp]

Chicago Pro's play:

I think that his play was fine so long as he doesn't always play it this way i.e. now and then, he needs to shed the rope-a-dope and checkraise somewhere. Note betting out on the river after you have played rope-a-dope is a better play when your opponent had raised in a steal position. Here, that was not the case. Chicago raised UTG and Roy 3 bet. He certainly has a legit hand which includes AK. So, Chicago's checkcall on the river is also fine.

Roy's play:

The better play is for Roy to check KK on the turn. BTW, if the flop was A53 for example, he may also want to check QQ. I mean, how can the other dude call his flop bet with a King? With JJ, again, he might want to consider checking the turn as there is little danger that Chicago called the flop bet with a King or Queen in his hand without an Ace. But a turn bet might be supportable if Chicago would fold KK or QQ i.e., given the Ace on the board.

As for Roy's bet, it's not entirely bad either. Perhaps, he told himself that "if Chicago raises, he has an Ace for sure and I can lay down" or that "Chicago would have raised for sure on the flop if he had an Ace and that he is capable of calling me twice more with some lower pocket pair".

But on balance, Roy should probably check KK on the turn.

[astroglide]

i think it was roy that screwed this one up

if i get my aq 3bet by a good or aggressive player and an ace flops, i check/call the whole way through - possibly value bet the river if it looks like they're not going to come through on the river.

you lose the least to aa and ak, and you win the most from everything else. i don't mind giving them a free shot at a 2 outer if it's going to induce a bluff or make them think they're ahead.

there are no overcards that roy can give out, no straight draws, no flush draws. he's either losing or handing out meal tickets for a 2-outer. definitely check the turn.

[Kevin J]

I was also very curious what the XX actually were, but the only answer I could get was that they were not important to the hand.

I'm positive Roy had KK.

I thought the hand was interesting, but then I think a lot of stuff about the way a hand plays is interesting that others don't think is.

[Vehn]

I think this is one of these hands where it doesn't matter how either player plays as long they don't fold.

[Kevin J]

"I don't think that his hand was strong enough to wait until the turn to put in a raise."

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Assuming he has the best hand and that the XX are truly blanks, how many outs can Roy have here? In other words, how close to drawing dead must an opponent be before waiting until the turn IS correct? (just playing the devil's advocate). Thanks.

[eldo77]

Chicago played the hand very badly. He should have either checkraised the flop and bet the turn or bet the flop and the turn. Roy played his hand perfectly. What is he supposed to do? His opponent is playing so weak you can't blame him for thinking he has the best hand.He probably thought he was up against QQ or JJ.

[anatta]

I agree that check raising the turn with AQ here would be too aggressive. Looking at Roy's possible holdings, AA, AK, KK are the most likely, and I do not think check raising on the turn makes sense for any of them.

[PokerPrince]

A checkraise on the flop is a good option for the AQ here results aside. I'm not sure why he chose to be so passive about this. The way things went I think Roy should of checked behind on the turn.

PokerPrince

[Softrock]

I have played with Roy quite a bit at Bellagio and for many years before the Bellagio at the Mirage. I think it's erroneous to call him "squeaky tight". One of the things I've watched him do and something he writes about is adjust his play to the game and players at hand. Recently we were together in a ridiculously tight 30-60 game. Roy raised UTG and I was in mid-late position with KK and 3 bet. To make a long story short he hit his set, played it fast until the river when the board paired and then checked to me. I checked. Roy later said to me "I can't believe you didn't bet those Kings on the river." I responded that I never value bet when I'm confused as to where I'm at and his play had confused me - I think we both learned something from that encounter.

However, the point is, in a very tight game you will see sophisticated players like RC come in for a raise UTG with a hand like 55 where he would never do so in a different type of game.

My suspicion is your friend was in a relatively loose game where someone like Roy is only going to bet when he has a hand because he knows he's going to be called. Can this possibly be a product of your friend's play?

[Kevin J]

Thanks for your response Softrock. I always like to hear about encounters between top players.

"My suspicion is your friend was in a relatively loose game where someone like Roy is only going to bet when he has a hand because he knows he's going to be called. Can this possibly be a product of your friend's play? "

From my understanding this was the first 15 minutes they had played together. IMO- I wouldn't call the guy from Chicago a loose goose, but who knows? Maybe Roy picked something up about his play.. Thanks again.

[Kevin J]

Are you saying that if the guy from Chicago DID check/raise the turn, that Roy should pay off an unkown player 100% of the time? Just curious. Thanks.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Kevin:

The first question is, did the Chicago local make a bad check on the turn? I didn't necessarily think so. I believe he should've made whichever play gets Roy to put another bet in. If checking accomplishes this, then fine.

Your friend is either badly beat or he has Cooke badly beat. In either case he probably wants to check.

The next question is, did Roy make a bad bet on the turn? Roy is either safely ahead or drawing very thin with KK, so is there any compelling reason for him to bet? Then again, the Chicago local was unkown to him. Roy could've been thinking, "I'm gonna call the river if I check, so why not bet? If he's got QQ or a worse hand, I'll charge him to draw". What does everyone else think?

There's good reason to check here. If Cooke has JJ, then a bet makes much more sense. Do you see the difference?

The third question is, what should the Chicago local have done after Roy bet the turn? A top Chicago pro, thought check/raising the flop was in order. Failing that, check/raising the turn was a MUST in his opinion. His reasoning was that the Chicago local should've been content to take the pot at any point. How can Roy make a bad bet on the turn, when he never gets properly punished for it?

There's nothing wrong with the check, call. Cooke could easily have ace-king, and two aces is a possibility.

So another question is, should the Chicago local be looking to take this pot down right away? Or should he try and get Roy to put in as much "bad" money as possible? Don't forget, there's still a small chance the Chicago local is beat, although this is probably not something to be overly afraid of. I suppose there's a point in every hand, where you need to balance the importance between winning the pot and gaining value for your hand. Was that balance tipped here against a two-out hand?

The chance of the Chicago player having the best hand are probably smaller than you think. There's 1 way he can be against AA and 8 ways he can be against AK. There are also 6 ways each he can be against KK, QQ, and JJ. So he is only a 2-to-1 favorite. Plus he is out of position. So playing the hand defensively seems fine to me.

Best wishes,
mason

[Dynasty]

Everyone who wants to check-raise this flop or turn out of position when heads-up against a solid pre-flop 3-bettor is asking to get punished by better hands and letting worse hands fold cheaply.

Check-calling this hand down should be your standard play. Maybe you can value bet the river. Why the hell would you want an underpair to fold while drawing to a ~22:1 shot?

As for Roy's turn bet, it's nearly automatic. I'd bet KK there everytime and expect to be ahead almost every time.

[J_V]

Ahead? you're kidding. Roy played this hand very badly. With AQ check-calling is the best default play, agreed, but against sophisticated opponents this is transparent. No way KK is ahead, no way someone is leading in to Roy Cooke, aceless here that often.

[Kevin J]

Thanks Mason- Just one more question..

"There's good reason to check here. If Cooke has JJ, then a bet makes much more sense. Do you see the difference?"

I would see the difference if there were no ace out, because it might be important not to let overcards fall. But JJ seems about the same as KK here. I can't think of many hands containing a loose king or queen that a solid player would call the flop with, that wouldn't already include an ace (would he check/call with KQ?). So checking even JJ from Roy's spot, seems pretty safe to me. Am I missing something?

[Kevin J]

As for Roy's turn bet, it's nearly automatic. I'd bet KK there everytime and expect to be ahead almost every time.

Even if you do EXPECT to be ahead (and I'm not sure I agree with that), you certainly can't EXPECT to be called by a worse hand. I'm not saying this is a reason to check, but I also can't find a very compelling reason to bet either. If the flop truly was AXX (which often won't be the case), you have a better chance of collecting another bet by checking the turn. Don't you think?

[Tommy Angelo]

Dynasty,

I agree with you and Mason and anyone else who thinks that checkcalling was a good policy on this hand. But, that so many players would checkcall does some damage to your reasoning below:

"Check-calling this hand down should be your standard play."

And as we now know, for many it is.

"As for Roy's turn bet, it's nearly automatic. I'd bet KK there everytime and expect to be ahead almost every time."

I question "almost every time" because, what about all the times that the Chicago player and you and Mason and me and anyone else employs the "standard play" you recommend, and check the flop and turn with an ace? To whatever extend players checkcall with the ace, then a turn check by Roy earns merit, yes?

Interesting hand.

Tommy

[Dynasty]

No way KK is ahead, no way someone is leading in to Roy Cooke, aceless here that often.

Chicago didn't lead into Roy Cooke once post-flop.

The reason KK is good here most of the time is that the other player is checking. Just look at the responses in this thread. The vast majority of posters want to check-raise either the flop or turn. That's exactly how most players will play the hand because they aren't "sophisticated". They'll be aggressive by either betting out or check-raising with their top pair/strong kicker. When they check and call, the typical player is telling you he can't beat top pair. He's far more likely to have QQ-99 than an Ace.

For the same reasons, Roy played the hand perfectly. His opponent's checks should be interpreted as meaning he can't beat an Ace but is likely to call down with QQ-99.

[Dynasty]

Even if you do EXPECT to be ahead (and I'm not sure I agree with that), you certainly can't EXPECT to be called by a worse hand.

I expect QQ-99 to call more than often enough to make up for those times that I'm behind AQ or AK. Worse hands call all the time.

[Dynasty]

And as we now know, for many (check-calling) is (the standard play).

That's not my experience. My experience is that the vast majority of players will be aggressive by either betting or check-raising with their top pair AK/AQ/AJ. The posts at the beginning of this thread reinforce this. The vast majority of the responders wanted to checkraise either the flop or turn. I expect most players, especially at 30-60, will also be aggressive with their top pair.

I question "almost every time"...

I suppose I could change it to "a significant majority of the time". It's certainly often enought to show a profit by betting KK on the turn.

[Dynasty]

So checking even JJ from Roy's spot, seems pretty safe to me. Am I missing something?

Betting JJ in Roy Cooke's position is better because there will be many opponents in Chicago's position who will fold KK or QQ believing that you wouldn't continue betting if you didn't have at least an Ace. The value of position is often to win a pot your cards aren't entitled to by betting when checked to on a scary board. There's also the minor benefit of betting KQ to fold if it's still around.

[Kevin J]

[mikelow]

So playing defensively works? True the Chicago guy is only a 2-1 favorite and out of position, but a turn check-raise might win the pot right away. I would check-raise the turn and check-call the river.

[skp]

See my earlier post. I raised the same point although I do say that betting JJ might be worthwhile if the other guy can fold KK/QQ because of the ace on board.

But this principle (of checking JJ) can be carried over to other spots where it's unlikely that your opponent has a better hand which he will fold. For example, let's say that you raised in late position with JJ and are now headsup with someone in early position. The flop comes A22 rainbow and he checkcalls. In this spot, the rationale for checking KK on the turn applies equally (or nearly equally) to JJ as no rational player would havre called the flop bet with a King or a Queen unless it was AK or AQ. When he calls, his most likely hands are a pocket pair, a weak ace or a deuce. So, you should check JJ (but probably bet 55).

[Kevin J]

I'm really glad that both you and Dynasty brought up this point. I haven't been running too well over the last couple of sessions. I fear my thinking has become limited and I'm neglecting to look at ALL sides of a hand. I've fallen into a defensive rut and considered only the danger of free cards with JJ. The fact is, when a pot goes to 3 bets and starts getting large there are other considerations such as getting a worse hand to fold. At the very least, it shouldn't be overlooked.

I recently had a hand where I raised with JJ and was 3-bet by a tight solid player. The flop came A-high and I check/raised. She called. I led again on the turn and she showed me QQ and mucked. Maybe a bad play on my part. But I haven't been thinking enough about this situation WITH position... Thanks skp.

[Dynasty]

but a turn check-raise might win the pot right away.

You shouldn't want to win the pot immediately if your opponent (1) has and underpair and (2) he'll put one bet into the pot on the river. That pot is much too small to be chasing somebody out who's drawing to a 2-outer and will put more money into the pot on a later street.

I think a lot of players are misjudging this situation because Roy is holding the might KK. I think the analysis would be much different if Roy held 22. However, the situation would be the same. You'd still have him drawing to just two outs. Would you want to "win the pot right away" if your opponent held 22?

[mike l.]

right on dynasty. i almost cringe to see you posting this well-thought out info though. i dont want all the other mid limit players who would show aggression against an obviously willing bettor w/ a huge dog who knows how to fold to learn how to play this hand well.

i posted a 15-30 AQ hand a few months back where i 3 bet in the bb against an aggressive semi-solid 40-80 regular and she 4 bet preflop. the board by the river was ATx-x-x and my play was check-call, check-call, bet. she called and my hand was good. the vast majority of posters hated the way i played it. i like that.

as for cooke's value bet on the turn i hate it. there are enough players who would get scared w/ AQ and AJ or try to rope-a-dope. at 30-60 there are less players who would call w/ a smaller pair against a turn raise given the preflop action and the A on board. take the free card and call a river bet, or bet the river if checked to again.

betting the turn and then checking behind on the river is completely wrong here because you miss seeing the showdown when you are checkraised. at 30-60 fear of being run off the best hand is reasonable. check-call and then check-raise is a great way to run a steal against KK w/ that A on board if youre caught holding something like 88 against a player willing to fold a strong hand against some turn aggression.

[Manzanita]

Kevin,

If Roy has an Ace (which is a reasonable assumption given that he 3-bet an UTG raiser) then it is unlikely that the Chicago player is ahead. Of course, Roy could also have 3-bet with KK, QQ, and possibly lesser pocket pairs. If you look at the distribution of possible hands then the Chicago player appears to be a slight favorite. That is why I think he should play the flop aggressively. If analysis suggested that the Chicago player was a bigger favorite then check-calling the flop and going for a raise on the turn is a better play. I hope that this reasoning makes sense (which is not to say that it is necessarily correct).

-- Manzanita

[mikelow]

You convinced me! Once again, I let results color my thinking. One more point, is Roy Cooke overrated?

Can we post this on UPF?

[brad]

gee this play is right out of HFAP so i dont see why mid limit players arent familiar with it.

[Clarkmeister]

Two thoughts:

1. "So he is only a 2-1 favorite" - There aren't a lot of situations in holdem where you are such a substantial favorite are there? 2-1 seems monstrous to me. I'm surprised you use the word 'only'.

2. I haven't ever played with Roy, but based on his writings and attitudes about 'unknown' and 'tourist' type players, I suspect his range of 3-betting hands is considerably larger than AA-JJ and AK against this opponent. I would be very surprised if he doesn't go down to 88 and AQ in these spots, particularly if the blinds are tight at all. I suspect that your possible range of hands Roy could be holding here is too narrow and the Chicago player is substantially higher than a 2-1 favorite here.

[deadbart]

Wait a minute. The reason that you should bet KK is that it "is good here most of the time", because most players "want to check-raise either the flop or turn"??? (emphasis mine)

You should check KK because there are very hands that won't either fold or checkraise on the turn. Then on the river, you call if they bet or bet if they check. You get a bet from hands like smaller pocker pairs that would fold on the turn, because they bet into you or get suspicious and call. Yes you give them chances to hit 2 outers. Oh well. Meanwhile, you lose the same amount to an ace, with a free chance to hit a set on the river.

Of course this all depends on the player; some guys will call you the whole way with an underpair, or always show aggression on the flop if they have an ace. But I don't find your argument that you should bet KK on the turn because people will checkraise the flop or turn very convincing.

[Mason Malmuth]

Dynasty, as usual, has got it.

MM

[deadbart]

But don't these same worse hands almost always bet into you on the river if you check the turn? And if they don't bet the river, won't they call if you bet the river?

[mike l.]

"One more point, is Roy Cooke overrated?"

no.

"Can we post this on UPF?"

yes.

[Hobart]

I don't think Roy won this hand. Chicago lost it by not raising. Short and sweet.

[mike l.]

what part of "i have my opponent betting into me while he has way the worst of it (a 2 outer!) so why on earth would i want to raise and scare him away?" dont you understand.

go back and read mason and dynasty's posts and steer clear of any hold em tables until this all makes perfect sense to you.

[Hobart]

How much of the pot did you take down? Roy is an excellant player and he glided right in.

[hillbilly]

...concerning your thought number 2....i agree roy could have a wider range of hands here than most, and i would be tempted to 4 bet preflop and try to take back the initiative...

would this be a good "vary your play move" or just plain suicide? even if the move fails this hand, you might make roy slow down a bit against you

hillbilly- "trying to shed the tighty image without throwing a party with all his chips"...

[Clarkmeister]

With AQ I call, but with AK and the pot headsup, I like to 4-bet about 25-40% of the time. Don't know if that's right or not, but its how I play in this spot.

[cpk]

<font color="#666666"> i posted a 15-30 AQ hand a few months back where i 3 bet in the bb against an aggressive semi-solid 40-80 regular and she 4 bet preflop. the board by the river was ATx-x-x and my play was check-call, check-call, bet. she called and my hand was good. the vast majority of posters hated the way i played it. i like that. </font color>

This is a brilliant play, and I agree that if most mid-limit players say this is wrong, I have bright days ahead of me when I leave Seattle....so to speak.