Another AK problem

[Mikey]

Remember I'm not the best at explaining things on paper, i'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Anyway here goes.

Let's say you raise with AK, obviously.

You get one caller from the BB or even a player in the field, who is a decent player, now the flop comes 3 J 7 let's say with a rainbow suit, and he checks to you since you have position on him.

Would it be such a bad idea to check behind him or should you always 100% of the time be betting into him?

What about the type of flops that there are, are there some types that you would consider checking or should you frequently bet betting on all flops heads up when checked to with AK.

Should you be betting 100% of time or is it ok to check once in a while with the intention to

a) raise a turn bet
b) fold on the turn when bet into

or are there any other circumstances.

The reason why I say this is because how often do your opponnents fold on the flop for one bet, not many so is this bet just a donation? I frequently think it is.

I try to examine holes in my game and a hole that I see is usually it's when I begin to overplay a hand like AK or AQ that i find i'm losing money when I miss the flop and continue betting into an opponnent who is

a) decent and will frequently put you on overcards like that
b) a complete fish who will call with anything at all.

either way you usually aren't getting anyone to fold on the flop for one bet very very rarely does that happen.

Basically in a nutshell, should you check when you miss with, and not make the (DONATION BET)?

[Dynasty]

Heads-up, my default play is bet the flop, bet the turn, bet the river. It doesn't take many river folds by your opponents to show a good profit.

[Ed Miller]

Remember that your opponent will only hit the flop 1/3 of the time himself. If he's calling your "donation" bet more often even than that, then he is often calling with nothing on the flop, and therefore he is behind to your nut nothing. You don't have any good reason to suspect that you are behind headsup with AK, even if you airball.

[Mike Gallo]

Let's say you raise with AK, obviously. You get one caller from the BB or even a player in the field, who is a decent player, now the flop comes 3 J 7 let's say with a rainbow suit, and he checks to you since you have position on him.

You should come out firing.

Would it be such a bad idea to check behind him or should you always 100% of the time be betting into him?

If he has a tendency to check raise, perhaps you would take the free card. However given your AK against his defending the blind with that flop, I think you might lose some equity in the pot by checking. I do not think you want to give him a free card in that spot, especially if he has a small pocket pair.

I try to examine holes in my game and a hole that I see is usually it's when I begin to overplay a hand like AK or AQ that i find i'm losing money when I miss the flop and continue betting into an opponnent who is

Give the forum examples of how you overplay AK or AQ. Perhaps this will help your game and decision making process.

[TobDog]

I agree with the guys on this one, most of the time I would be betting the flop here, the main concern is if your opponent likes to checkraise your strength, if he is just a solid player not too tricky, you will know then if you are good or not. But even when you want to take that free card, if you check the flop, your lone opponent will often bet into you on the turn, if you bet the flop, you will often get checked to on the turn allowing you to take your free card and get to see the last 2 cards for no additional bets. I have seen a lot of writing recently about checking the flop after missing, but it was usually about betting into a crowd not a single opponent. Remember, he is the only thing between you and the money in the middle. /forums/images/icons/cool.gif

[JTG51]

The reason why I say this is because how often do your opponnents fold on the flop for one bet

My opponents fold on the flop for one bet all the time after I raised before the flop.

Should you be betting 100% of time or is it ok to check once in a while with the intention to...fold on the turn when bet into

I think this is a bad option. If you check the flop a lot of players will bet the turn with a lot of hands that don't beat AK.

Like everyone else, my default play when heads up would be to keep betting until they do something to change my mind.

[FREDSKINS]

Does anyone think that sometimes against weak players that a check after the flop is called for and be intent on raising after your opponent bets into you on the turn? There are certain times, but not to often in which I think this is another option.

[JTG51]

Does anyone think that sometimes against weak players that a check after the flop is called for and be intent on raising after your opponent bets into you on the turn?

It depends on what you mean by a weak player. When I hear weak, my first thought is calling station. Against a calling station that line of play would be a big mistake.

If when you say weak you mean a weak tight player that would fold a pair to a turn raise, then that's not such a bad idea.

[FREDSKINS]

I dont understand why it would be a bad play against a weak-loose player and better against a weak-tight. I Think you could use it more against the tight player as a bluff and as a value bet against loose players. I would think the situation to use the play would come up 5 to 10 times more against the weak-loose player.

[ZManODS]

How would your play differ in a multiway pot? Would you call a bet, call a raise, or if its checked to you would you bet out?

[Zag]

I think that it depends somewhat on how you play the rest of your game. I almost always bet the flop here (but note the 'almost'). I also almost always bet the flop when I flop a big set. If you usually check a big set, then I think you should usually check the missed AK, too.

I've seen some people who always, always, check the flop with top pair or better, and bet with any less. I consider them to be check-raise bait.

[JTG51]

I dont understand why it would be a bad play against a weak-loose player and better against a weak-tight.

Because a calling station type probably won't bet the turn without a pair, and he's not going to fold that pair to your raise. That means you are raising the turn heads up against a player that isn't going to fold with 6 outs at best.

A weak tight player might fold a better hand, so a semibluff raise has value.

[FREDSKINS]

Because a calling station type probably won't bet the turn without a pair, and he's not going to fold that pair to your raise. That means you are raising the turn heads up against a player that isn't going to fold with 6 outs at best.

A weak tight player might fold a better hand, so a semibluff raise has value.



Well then I would'nt advise the play against the calling station who would only bet with a pair is that situation but I know of plenty who just love to bet with inferior hands in that situation. Say the flop is 3,4,8 you check and in the right situation its an auto bet from a bad player then you raise.

[FREDSKINS]

First of all this isnt what I would do in all cases just telling you basically how I play. If someone bets I call and sometimes raise depending on the bettor and pot size.If it is checked to me I bet. If it is raised to me I fold. I hope this helps, fredskins

[J_V]

Interesting. I believe you default is a very bad default. Maybe against the weak-tight 15/30 players in Vegas this will fly, but I believe that if you did this online or in the Midwest it would almost turn AK into a break even hand (even with position). Of course, I just whipped that out of the air, but if you are beaten you are giving up too much in a relatively small pot.

Why pay off players who are putting you on AK and wishing and praying for it?


I will usually only bet the turn against a suspected draw or if my opponent is just picking one off. I will value bet AK, but hardly ever bet it as a bluff. Literally, almost never.

[JTG51]

...but I know of plenty who just love to bet with inferior hands in that situation.

I think we just might be talking about two different things here. Are you saying you know plenty of calling staions that will bet with inferior hands? If they will auto bet the turn with nothing after you check, they aren't calling stations.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Mikey:

I haven't read all the posts but here's an idea to think about. While you should frequently bet your hand, the hands I prefer to check in these spots are hands that contain a jack (and you have no pair) and both of your cards are overcards. For example, suppose you check AJ and the board is nine high. Now you can bet if an ace, king, queen, or jack comes on the turn.

Best wishes,
Mason

[FREDSKINS]

I defined them as loose-weak

[Pot-A]

Mikey,

Always bet the flop. For every instance it costs you extra money, you make that money back in additional action when you have a big pocket pair. If you check behind your opponent he knows exactly what you have, and thus exactly when to bet and when to fold on the turn and river.

In any case you have two overcards, so some percentage of the time you'll win anyway.

[MD_]

If your opponents are able to accurately put you on AK, then you aren't raising enough. I'm sure Dynasty would agree. This is why he can bet each street, because his opponents know he could just as easily have two pair with 78s as overcards with AK.

-MD

[Tommy Angelo]

"You get one caller from the BB or even a player in the field"

That makes all the difference to me. Against the big blind, I'm betting my AK when checked to, largely because I'm a big favorite to have the best hand. Against a limper, I'm spending all my energy to try to figure out if he has a pocket pair or not, and if I think he does, I'll check behind on the flop and fold on the turn.

Tommy

[KDF]

Good topic, good points...
I'm curious about what the raise accomplishes heads-up against 'calling stations' or 'loose-weakies'? If they are this type (which I think is the same), they don't fold easy, and they don't bet with nothing. A loose-aggressive will, but that’s a more tricky player--not the same. A big part of betting this 'missed' hand is that your opponent needs to fold often enough.

The type of player described (loose-weak) won't bet the turn without a 'good' pair (not bottom pair), and will almost always call your raise and river bet with any pair. If they truly have crap they will fold the flop or turn to your persistent betting. If they call the turn, I give it up on the river 50% of the time (with position) and show down. I reckon, if they go all the way and call the river, I can only beat a pair-less hand, and that only happens about half the time. Even the worst players rarely call with less than a pair on the river except certain boards like 227-88 rainbow, where an Ace often wins.

This check, then raise the turn is a good ‘mix-it-up play’ against better competition; not against loose-weak. Make the calling stations do what they do best—call, while giving them a chance to fold. IMHO

[cferejohn]

Maybe this is semantic, but when I describe a player as 'weak', I mean that they are more likely to fold to a raise. A player who tends to call along on everything I call "passive". Perhaps everyone else is defining differently?

[tewall]

If he's ahead of you, you are making a small mistake by chasing him. On the other hand, you are making a big mistake by folding if you're ahead of him. Conversely he is making a small mistake by chasing you if you're ahead and a large mistake by folding.

If he is a type of player who might fold a pair if you are agressive, then you should take the action most likely to cause him to do that (which would typically be to bet out to the river, but against certain opponents something else like checking behind him and then check-raising the turn might be better). If he is a type of player that would likely bet a pair, you should take the lead and bet for value. Unless he is a very predictable player, you should stick with your hand until showdown.

In conclusion, if he will fold a pair to agression, be aggresive. If he won't fold a pair no matter what, then it doesn't make much difference how you play, as long as you don't make the mistake of folding, unless you know him well and he is extremely predictable. How to get in or save extra bets will depend on the opponent.

[tewall]

I didn't understand this: "If they call the turn, I give it up on the river 50% of the time (with position) and show down. I reckon, if they go all the way and call the river, I can only beat a pair-less hand, and that only happens about half the time." What are giving up if you show down? Not betting? What is it that only happens about half the time? (I get it -- must be that they don't have a pair)

"This check, then raise the turn is a good ‘mix-it-up play’ against better competition; not against loose-weak. Make the calling stations do what they do best—call, while giving them a chance to fold. IMHO"

If loose-weak means they will occasionally fold with a pair and are very unlikely to bet the river, or if they did then you could comfortably fold, then it would be a good play against loose-weak. Even if the wouldn't fold with a pair, as long as they won't re-raise the turn or bet the river without a powerhouse, it's still not a bad play. You're playing to get a free showdown and an extra bet if you spike an A or K. The real equity is when the opponent will fold a better hand though.

Players who will fold here have been described as "weak", but folding could easily by the correct play if *you* predictably raise the turn only with a good pair, for example. Then the "weak" person could be drawing with no outs (as far as he knows). So your point about trying it against good competition can be well taken. That is, if you have only been turn-raising in similar situations with good pair type hands and the good competition has observed this, he may fold against you when you raise with AK even though he wouldn't normally.

[tewall]

"Weak" isn't a particularly helpful term. I understand it to mean someone who plays badly, specifically makes the wrong play (folds instead of calling or raising, calls instead of folding or raising, etc.) I think "someone who plays incorrectly" would probably be more accurate, but it's too wordy.

[SoBeDude]

Wow I can see how that is so powerful.

By raising preflop, it gets checked to you. When you then check you're representing that the flopped missed you. Now when an A K Q or J hits the board and you bet, it very much looks like the turn hit you well, regardless of whether it did or not!

Anyone would be hard pressed to call here unless they had a pair of the turn card beat.

very strong play! thanks!

One question though. If you bet again on the flop, doesn't that represent a big pair to most players? It seems that would induce many folds as well...unless they picked up a draw.

-Scott (still learning and so appreciative he found these forums)

[Dynasty]

One question though. If you bet again on the flop, doesn't that represent a big pair to most players? It seems that would induce many folds as well...unless they picked up a draw.

Mason is mixing up his play by checking with the hands that contain a Jack. He is often betting the flop with unimproved AK, AQ, and KQ hands to represent the overpair. He checks with unimproved AJ, KJ, and QJ hands.

It's an interesting approach.