A hand Entity and I talked about

[jason_t]

And regardless of the results I still disagree with him.

I open raise red JJ UTG+1. An LPP cold calls in MP1 and a player with TAGggish 17/9 stats after 100 hands 3-bets from the SB. A LAG BB calls two and I cap. Everyone calls.

Flop: (16 SB) J/images/graemlins/club.gif 3/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 4/images/graemlins/spade.gif
SB bets, BB folds, I raise, MP1 folds, SB 3-bets, I call.

Turn: (11 BB) Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif
SB bets, I raise, SB calls.

River: (15 BB) K/images/graemlins/heart.gif
SB checks, I

[brettbrettr]

Are the odds of him paying off with AA higher than those of him c/ring with KK?

[btspider]

[ QUOTE ]
Are the odds of him paying off with AA higher than those of him c/ring with KK?

[/ QUOTE ]

this seems to sum it up. he'll payoff with AA (6 ways) 100% of the time, so he'd need to check-raise KK (3 ways) 100% of the time for us to break even with a bet-call line. if he c/r's KK less than 100%, betting the river makes $$.

bet-folding aside.. but you'd have to be quite confident he isn't fps'ing it up to lay this one down to a c/r.

I don't think AA 3-bets the turn (which would make us more confident in KK over AA here). i must be missing something.

[molawn2mo]

Sb's turn call (rather than raise) makes it more less likely that he has AA and more likely that he has KK. I, therefore, check behind.

[silkyslim]

[ QUOTE ]
Sb's turn call (rather than raise) makes it more less likely that he has AA and more likely that he has KK. I, therefore, check behind.

[/ QUOTE ]
i disagree. he could be fearing the set here. its hard for TAGs to 3 bet with an overpair with this type of board and action. I like bet/call on the river.

[rmarotti]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sb's turn call (rather than raise) makes it more less likely that he has AA and more likely that he has KK. I, therefore, check behind.

[/ QUOTE ]
i disagree. he could be fearing the set here. its hard for TAGs to 3 bet with an overpair with this type of board and action. I like bet/call on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jason and I had almost this exact same exchange a minute ago. I agree with silky.

[molawn2mo]

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think AA 3-bets the turn making us more confident in KK over AA here. i must be missing something.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMHO, the difference between KK and AA is huge, here. Villain with AA, is beaten by only 3 combos of Js. Villain with KK, is beaten by an additional 6 combos of AA. This is significant and villain with AA is much freer to pop the turn. The inference should be drawn that since he did not pop the turn that he does not have AA; this, leaving KK as his logical hand.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't think AA 3-bets the turn making us more confident in KK over AA here. i must be missing something.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMHO, the difference between KK and AA is huge, here. Villain with AA, is beaten by only 3 combos of Js. Villain with KK, is beaten by an additional 6 combos of AA. This is significant and villain with AA is much freer to pop the turn. The inference should be drawn that since he did not pop the turn that he does not have AA; this, leaving KK as his logical hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you miss that there is a Q on the board as well? 3-betting this turn with AA is not solid poker.

[rmarotti]

Villain is beaten by an additional 3 combos of QQ on the turn. While jason himself might play KK the same way as a set here (calling flop 3 bet and popping the turn) I don't think most players would and a villain with decent hand reading and a bit of fear might read jason's flop/turn play as indicating his AA is now drawing.

edit to say: damn, Rob types fast.

[btspider]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't think AA 3-bets the turn making us more confident in KK over AA here. i must be missing something.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMHO, the difference between KK and AA is huge, here. Villain with AA, is beaten by only 3 combos of Js. Villain with KK, is beaten by an additional 6 combos of AA. This is significant and villain with AA is much freer to pop the turn. The inference should be drawn that since he did not pop the turn that he does not have AA; this, leaving KK as his logical hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

the Q turn vs a blank is what kills AA's turn 3-betting potential.

edit: I type slow, but at least I can read 2p2 at work again, eh Entity /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
And regardless of the results I still disagree with him.

I open raise red JJ UTG+1. An LPP cold calls in MP1 and a player with TAGggish 17/9 stats after 100 hands 3-bets from the SB. A LAG BB calls two and I cap. Everyone calls.

Flop: (16 SB) J/images/graemlins/club.gif 3/images/graemlins/diamond.gif 4/images/graemlins/spade.gif
SB bets, BB folds, I raise, MP1 folds, SB 3-bets, I call.

Turn: (11 BB) Q/images/graemlins/heart.gif
SB bets, I raise, SB calls.

River: (15 BB) K/images/graemlins/heart.gif
SB checks, I

[/ QUOTE ]

AK 12 combos
AA 6 combos
KK 3 combos
QQ 3 combos
TT 6 combos

Now we start discounting:

QQ seems less likely because I would expect a turn 3-bet.

AA is tough.. because I would also expect a turn 3-bet, although if he is the type to think scary thoughts..I could see him going passive.

Kind of the same thing with KK although his going passive would be a little more explainable due to your PF cap.

AK seems a little goofy but not altogether out of the picture, except for the fact he would have kind of overplayed it... I can't really see a normal player trying to run a capper off of a Jack high flop.

So basically the two finalists are AA and KK. HE seems to have played it a little more like KK. But I am kind of bothered by limiting him to those two hands. As there are some outside possbilites of hands that he may have played in a simaliar fashion.

This is where I really whip out the HUD and am looking at things like Flop aggression, turn aggression stuff like that.

I will say this I will not bet/fold this hand. Just looking at the board his payoff (besides AA and AK) hands would be KQ, KJ, QJ (which he also probably would have three-bet the turn), maybe AQ. Thing is of those hands only KJs makes any sense the whole way through and also is not very likely considering your holding.

The thing is that if you take only the AA or AK combos and discount them heavily based upon his play. You still have about a 50/50 shot. Factoring in the possbility of a weekly played QQ (which he may now not checkraise) and the kind of unlikely suited hands he might have raised PF (KQs...etc). I think you have a very thin and unenjoyable Bet/call.

Interesting hand.. will give something to work on tonight.

BTW, I like steam rolling these hands... If he has AA or KK he may not slowdown on the turn anyway (If you cap the flop) so you get to cap and are more likely to get your 2-bets on the turn.

[rmarotti]

KQ, KJ and QJ are all incredibly unlikely give villain's stats and his PF/flop play.

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
KQ, KJ and QJ are all incredibly unlikely give villain's stats and his PF/flop play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I stated that. But the suited varieties of these hands are a possbility however remote and with a seemingly close decision.. some thought has to extend to them.

[rmarotti]

IMHO, some possibilities are so remote they need not figure into an analysis of a situation.

[molawn2mo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sb's turn call (rather than raise) makes it more less likely that he has AA and more likely that he has KK. I, therefore, check behind.

[/ QUOTE ]
i disagree. he could be fearing the set here. its hard for TAGs to 3 bet with an overpair with this type of board and action. I like bet/call on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jason and I had almost this exact same exchange a minute ago. I agree with silky.

[/ QUOTE ]

These statements and reads are undoubtedly true and correct but the relevant question is what to do on the river. It is still correct to affirm (this assumes that the only relevant points in question are the KK v AA scenario):

That with AA, villain is more likely/apt to raise the turn

Now the above must be tempered with the thought that Villain can think that hero hand may be comprised of JJ, QQ, KK, AA while Hero can take QQ off of his list for Villain.

Heros hand range, in Villain's eyes, is wider than Villain's hand is in Hero's eyes.

The question still remains, will villain pay off with AA?
He ought see that with that hand he beats exactly zero hands in Hero's range and chops with 1 hand. Why will he pay off?

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
Why will he pay off?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because he's suffering from entitlement syndrome.

[rmarotti]

Because the pot is big and he has aces? I'm not sure I get your point.

edit to say: Rob, do you do anything but steal thunder from my posts? Just curious.

[einbert]

Tell me you didn't bet/fold :-p.

I bet/call.

I'm sure some extensive combinatorial analysis will come up with the optimal decision here. But really in hands like this it is not possible to do that kind of analysis at the table. The key factors in my mind are that the pot is huge, so he is going to pay off with plenty of hands including some very weak ones, including AA/AJ. He will get here this way some of the time with AK--some TAGs are just overaggressive. He will have KQs some of the time. If he were to sit down and really think about the play of this hand he wouldn't be able to checkraise the river with a hand that you beat. But if he knows that he's against jason_t he may do just that as he is getting 8-1 on a bluff. He might very well checkraise here with KQ for whatever reason after getting all this way. If he checkraises me I know I will see KK the vast majority of the time but I'm certainly not folding.

I don't fold sets to aggressive players in huge pots. I do value bet in huge pots.

[thirddan]

"The question still remains, will villain pay off with AA?
He ought see that with that hand he beats exactly zero hands in Hero's range and chops with 1 hand. Why will he pay off? "

yeah, most (damn near all) people are paying off here...most players (even more so because this is low limit online) are not able to calculate a weighted hand range or even hand read well enough to fold AA on the river heads up in a 16BB pot. even if they are capable, most can't do it in the three second between seeing the K and hitting the call button...

[uw_madtown]

[ QUOTE ]
The question still remains, will villain pay off with AA?
He ought see that with that hand he beats exactly zero hands in Hero's range and chops with 1 hand. Why will he pay off?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there's a simple answer for this depending on what game it is. In certain games, players have a much more difficult time letting go of AA before showdown. But jason didn't say whether this was the Party 2/4, the Bellagio 4/8, or the Commerce whatever.

[molawn2mo]

[ QUOTE ]
Because the pot is big and he has aces? I'm not sure I get your point.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK... That's a fair statement. My comments are made using the read given that Villain has TAG stats. Now, maybe I overstepped and credited him with the ability to think and my comments are made in that context. I may, obviously, be wrong. People call the river because "it;s just one more" all of the time.

If the question were put, "should Villain (if you were Villain) call hero's river bet?" Would you?

Edit to say that it is not uncommon for people to say that I credit my opponents with more thinking than I should. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why will he pay off?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because he's suffering from entitlement syndrome.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think he _should_ fold AA? Why or why not?

That could become a very interesting discussion.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why will he pay off?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because he's suffering from entitlement syndrome.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think he _should_ fold AA? Why or why not?

That could become a very interesting discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he knows his opponent, yes, he should. It's a pretty [censored] board and he has top pair. If he doesn't know anything other than jason has folded for a while and now he's not folding, then I think calling down after the turn raise is more reasonable.

Rob

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
IMHO, some possibilities are so remote they need not figure into an analysis of a situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you have all the time in the world and a >5% swing (not sure that that is the case here) makes the difference between a bet and a check... remote possbilities should be considered if only for the purpose of thoroughness.

[gopnik]

so, what are the results? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[rmarotti]

Most of the time I hate SSHE based arguments that amount to "the pot is big don't fold" when hand analysis and reads make for a much better explanation of things, but if Villain has AA here, against jason (who I assume is an unknown to him) then basically he has to think "the pot is big I shouldn't fold."

[rmarotti]

Well, I guess I can see it as an academic exercise, but given villain's stats I think he has those hands like 1% of the time or less.

[Entity]

I know this is a remote consideration given the board and how bad it is to use this line with AA here, but the fact that villain may/may not be aware of the concept of checkraising the river to save bets adds a bit of weight to bet-calling the river. It's a stretch though, since anyone good enough to know how to make a play like that should be able to discern that this is a bad board/player to use this against.

[B Dids]

[11:01] <BDids> I want to bet, fold in jason's hand
[11:01] <BDids> but I can't
[11:01] <BDids> so I bet call
[11:02] <BDids> if you have a solid enough read, he's never raising you with a hand you beat there
[11:02] <BDids> but 100 hands
[11:03] <BDids> isn't enough for me to put him strictly on AA KK QQ based on that preflop and flop play
[11:03] <BDids> so I pay off like fish

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the time I hate SSHE based arguments that amount to "the pot is big don't fold" when hand analysis and reads make for a much better explanation of things, but if Villain has AA here, against jason (who I assume is an unknown to him) then basically he has to think "the pot is big I shouldn't fold."

[/ QUOTE ]

I was trying to come up with a game theory argument for AA calling the river, however unfortunately given the action so far it really really seems like the AA is dicked.

I think the SSHE argument holds much more weight when your opponent is "an unknown TAG" or "a 19/12/2", because then you have much less predictability and much more deviation from optimal play. Especially at the 2/4 level (although this hand actually doesn't have a listed limit). And the SSHE argument definitely holds a ton of weight when your opponent is not a TAG, because then there is a huge component of unpredictability to his actions.

[B Dids]

When I am playing well, I call the turn with AA and maybe fold the river.

When I am playing bad I 3-bet the turn and call down if capped.

As of late I think I've been 3-betting the river too. HELLO DOWNSWING!!!

[W. Deranged]

This is a great discussion and I have little to add to what is already going on, but I will say:

If villain is going to put any money in on this river with any hand, he should probably be check-raising. In other words, game-theoretically, if villain is going to check this river, he needs to be checking with the intent of raising a one-pair hand reasonably often.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
When I am playing well, I call the turn with AA and maybe fold the river.

When I am playing bad I 3-bet the turn and call down if capped.

As of late I think I've been 3-betting the river too. HELLO DOWNSWING!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

I will never have enough data on a TAG to know that they play perfectly. 16-1 is enough for me to call this river with AA and feel fine about it.

In the same vein, 19-1 is enough for me to call the river checkraise with JJ. In fact I wouldn't be able to respect myself if I laid down to a checkraise here, but maybe that's just a personal issue I need to solve. But it certainly wouldn't feel right to surrender this huge pot to a TAG who may or may not be david sklansky.

[molawn2mo]

[ QUOTE ]

Did you miss that there is a Q on the board as well? 3-betting this turn with AA is not solid poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't miss it but chose to ignore it becasue I felt that the overriding issue had to deal with the ratio or relationship of Villain's hand being AA v KK. Clearly the turn Q puts villain in bigger trouble but it does not change the fact that AA is still a far superior holding on the turn than KK and therefore is significantly more likely to 3 bet the turn. It is still more likely, even if incorrect.

I am coming around a bit to seeing the value in a bet but getting 3 bet would suck, really suck.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
When I am playing bad I 3-bet the turn and call down if capped.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's pure spew, IMO. Stop doing that. Use your reads.

When a good player gives action on the flop but just calls your 3-bet and raises the turn, you're usually pretty hosed.

Edited to add, given the preflop, flop, board, etc... blah blah.

[B Dids]

That's just the worst river though. Think about the hands he'll play like this, a K is just so ugly in that spot for AA.

In my original post was that I'd have to pay of with JJJ here, and I might do the same with AA, however, I tink there is a time when our read can supercede any pot size and we need to fold when we're beat.

The reason against that is just that we don't have a good enough read, but if we did, it's fold city.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
it does not change the fact that AA is still a far superior holding on the turn than KK and therefore is significantly more likely to 3 bet the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess if Dids is the villain then you have a point.

But seriously, only spew monkeys 3-bet the turn with AA here against a fellow TAG.

Sorry Dids. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason against that is just that we don't have a good enough read, but if we did, it's fold city.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. But a pertinent question might be, "is a good enough read even possible online?"

[Joe Tall]

I don't like the preflop cap given the situation. If your read is correct on the SB you aren't gaining anything w/the other two players in the hand. Given the SBs range and the other two with the frequency of overcards on the flop, just call the 3-bet w/JJ.

I like the idea of playing the flop faster and capping. As if he does have an overpair, AA, KK, the TAG will often c/r the turn and you'll get and extra BB. In addition if he's going to slow down w/AK, often he'll just check the turn here and you missed an SB.

Given the way you played it; I still bet the damn river. He'll have AA, AK enough to slow down and just call. It's thin but there is value in it.

If you checked the river:

misplayed on every street. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The reason against that is just that we don't have a good enough read, but if we did, it's fold city.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. But a pertinent question might be, "is a good enough read even possible online?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, I make sweet online reads all the time.

But then I ignore them and do something dumb anyway. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[B Dids]

Nothing to be sorry about, I admit I'm a spew monkey when I play bad. I just like saying it publically so I can shame myself into player better.

[newhizzle]

bet/call

[B Dids]

Why?

[callmedonnie]

[ QUOTE ]
Are the odds of him paying off with AA higher than those of him c/ring with KK?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think so. He can't beat anything hero has except AK, which he doesn't have with this line pretty much always.

[einbert]

We can talk about the perfect line against a perfectly playing opponent all day, but that's not the question. The question is, what's the best line against an unknown 2/4 TAG? I believe it involves betting and not folding.

[newhizzle]

[ QUOTE ]
Why?

[/ QUOTE ]

i could see SB either having AA or getting frisky with AJs or something often enough to make this a clear value bet, maybe you could fold to a raise, but i couldnt

[jgorham]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like the preflop cap given the situation. If your read is correct on the SB you are gaining anything w/the other two players in the hand. Given the SBs range and the other two with the frequency of overcards on the flop, just call the 3-bet w/JJ.

I like the idea of playing the flop faster and capping. As if he does have an overpair, AA, KK, the TAG will often c/r the turn and you'll get and extra BB. In addition if he's going to slow down w/AK, often he'll just check the turn here and you missed an SB.

Given the way you played it; I still bet the damn river. He'll have AA, AK enough to slow down and just call. It's thin but there is value in it.

If you checked the river:

misplayed on every street. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this post 100%

[hobbsmann]

does anybody else not like the preflop cap?

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
does anybody else not like the preflop cap?

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't like it. I think the fact that we have perfect relative position for hand protection and such on the pre-flop raiser is great, not to mention the fact that we are pretty much behind the range of standard BB three-betting hands even from a 9% pfr type.

[newhizzle]

[ QUOTE ]
does anybody else not like the preflop cap?

[/ QUOTE ]

um...arent you a LAG? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

anyway, your probably not too big of a favorite over his range, but i dont mind it with position over the 3-bettor and a slight chance knocking out MP1

[Shillx]

If villain is going to put any money in on this river with any hand, he should probably be check-raising. In other words, game-theoretically, if villain is going to check this river, he needs to be checking with the intent of raising a one-pair hand reasonably often.

If by reasonably often...you really mean one time in 36 that he has AA. The pot will be 18 BB after the check/raise and our only two hands here are AA and KK. So for everytime that we check/raise with one pair, we need to check/raise with the top set eighteen times. For every 18 times that we check/raise KK, we will have AA 36 times. Therefore we need to check/raise one time in 36. If you check/raised AA here everytime, you would be in a world of trouble. It is probably a fold anyway, but it is much better to fold AA here then check/raise with it a large % of the time. If we are playing well, it makes no difference what Jason does with his 3 jacks. He will catch us with AA one time in 19 (the exact pot odds he is getting to call here).

Brad

[hobbsmann]

[ QUOTE ]

um...arent you a LAG? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
only some of the time, the rest of the time I'm a confused TAG /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
If villain is going to put any money in on this river with any hand, he should probably be check-raising. In other words, game-theoretically, if villain is going to check this river, he needs to be checking with the intent of raising a one-pair hand reasonably often.

If by reasonably often...you really mean one time in 36 that he has AA. The pot will be 18 BB after the check/raise and our only two hands here are AA and KK. So for everytime that we check/raise with one pair, we need to check/raise with the top set eighteen times. For every 18 times that we check/raise KK, we will have AA 36 times. Therefore we need to check/raise one time in 36. If you check/raised AA here everytime, you would be in a world of trouble. It is probably a fold anyway, but it is much better to fold AA here then check/raise with it a large % of the time. If we are playing well, it makes no difference what Jason does with his 3 jacks. He will catch us with AA one time in 19 (the exact pot odds he is getting to call here).

Brad

[/ QUOTE ]

Game theory like this is extremely useful against experts. Unfortunately for this problem, the average 2/4 TAG simply doesn't fit into that category.

[callmedonnie]

[ QUOTE ]
I know this is a remote consideration given the board and how bad it is to use this line with AA here, but the fact that villain may/may not be aware of the concept of checkraising the river to save bets adds a bit of weight to bet-calling the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was hoping you could elaborate on the concept of checkraising the river to save bets.

[Shillx]

But that is the beauty of it. If we play as game theory would suggest, Jason would never win on the end. Even if he called us everytime...he would still lose. If he folded everytime he would lose as well as he gives us the pot that one time in 19. Now obviously there would be a better strategy if he called everytime (don't check/raise with AA) and a better strategy if he folded everytime (check/raise AA everytime), but if you don't know what he will do it is always best to play according to game theory. If you never checked/raised AA on the end, you would only be playing "correctly" if he always payed off. Look at our EV when we play well...

If he calls everytime:

EV = 18/19 * 1BB - 1/19 * 2 BB = + 16/19 BB

If he folds everytime:

EV = 1/19 * 16 BB = + 16/19 BB

That value is just too good to give up on a hunch. You can't go wrong by playing this way.

Brad

This river is very complex, but here are my thoughts. Don't bet if you can't fold to a check/raise. At best you will breakeven. If he will fold AA to a river bet some big % of the time, you would again check. I don't think that any opponent will check/raise AA enough to make bet-folding wrong here (if it never folded), so I like a bet-fold if you think AA will payoff and a check if you don't.

[btspider]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know this is a remote consideration given the board and how bad it is to use this line with AA here, but the fact that villain may/may not be aware of the concept of checkraising the river to save bets adds a bit of weight to bet-calling the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was hoping you could elaborate on the concept of checkraising the river to save bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

4 is less than 5 /images/graemlins/smile.gif

(count the bets going in on the big streets based on a turn 3-bet vs a river c/r)

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like the preflop cap given the situation. If your read is correct on the SB you aren't gaining anything w/the other two players in the hand. Given the SBs range and the other two with the frequency of overcards on the flop, just call the 3-bet w/JJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

I use to not cap preflop in this spot and got criticized pretty heavily for it by some people that I have a lot of respect for. I use to argue with a pretty simple combinatorial analysis that capping here isn't right but they would mumble stuff about metagame etc.

[shant]

Aren't you jason_sickriverfoldert? Why isn't this a bet/fold on the river. I'm not saying I could, but I'm a fish and you like folding rivers.

[callmedonnie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I know this is a remote consideration given the board and how bad it is to use this line with AA here, but the fact that villain may/may not be aware of the concept of checkraising the river to save bets adds a bit of weight to bet-calling the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was hoping you could elaborate on the concept of checkraising the river to save bets.

[/ QUOTE ]

4 is less than 5 /images/graemlins/smile.gif

(count the bets going in on the big streets based on a turn 3-bet vs a river c/r)

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotcha. So b/c turn + c/r river = 4. Bet/3bet is 3 on turn at least and that bars Jason's capping. The fact that you could get raised on river means that it would cost 5 to showdown, minimum. Thanks, good to know.

[Joe Tall]

[ QUOTE ]
I use to argue with a pretty simple combinatorial analysis that capping here isn't right but they would mumble stuff about metagame etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

There are definately times for it and quite often I will recommend it but this is not one of them.

[augie00]

man. this spot sucks. it is a true test of manhood to see if you can bet/fold here.

[Moozh]

Without looking at the other replies.

First the assumptions...

SB has either AA or KK. AK would not have donked the turn. QQ or JJ, would not have stopped on the turn. He could have TT, but he should fold that on the turn.

SB will call the river with AA. Otherwise there was no reason for him to call the turn raise.

You will call a river raise.

He has AA 2x more than KK. Assuming he plays botht the same up to the river, there are 6 combos of AA and 3 combos of KK.

Thus...

2/3 of the time, you gain one bet.
1/3 of the time, you lose two bets.

If you're calling the river raise, it's a moot point. If you can fold to the river raise, bet it.

EDIT: After reading the replies.

The best point made (and one I totally missed) was that AA would be less likely to call the river once the king comes because he knows he's behind every hand Jason could have. Thus, it seems the play depends heavily on your read of the villian. More specifically, whether the villian is an auto-playing multitabler with ABC stats, or if he has shown the ability to read hands.

The other important decision (whether to bet/fold) also depends on your certainty of your read on the villian. If you know he won't raise the river without a hand you beat, then you can safely fold, which makes betting much more appealing.

But, in order of priority, his ability to fold aces to a KQJ board comes first, because if he can do this then there's absolutely no value in betting the river. Only if you're sure he will call with AA can you even begin to think about bet/folding.

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't like the preflop cap given the situation. If your read is correct on the SB you aren't gaining anything w/the other two players in the hand. Given the SBs range and the other two with the frequency of overcards on the flop, just call the 3-bet w/JJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

I use to not cap preflop in this spot and got criticized pretty heavily for it by some people that I have a lot of respect for. I use to argue with a pretty simple combinatorial analysis that capping here isn't right but they would mumble stuff about metagame etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Remember that hand I capped JJ at Lucky Chances? That was a cap for value, plain and simple with the donkeys giving me the value and with scrub having a wide enough 3-betting range where my equity was quite good.

Here's another JJ cap from two weeks ago at Borgata. Donkey (he would be 90/2/0.4 with about a 25% limp-reraise percent) limps UTG, I raise JJ UTG+1, three more donkeys coldcall, all play at least 35% of their hands, UTG limp-reraises, and I have the world's easiest cap.

[DeathDonkey]

You rock this thread. I would bet the river with the intention of not getting checkraised.

-DeathDonkey

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
man. this spot sucks. it is a true test of manhood to see if you can bet/fold here.

[/ QUOTE ]

It probably is also a mistake without a rock solid read. This is where the unlikely hands come into play. 18-1 gets us down near the 5% range, which in my opinion makes it to close to fold.

One of the resonas being is with one of the possible but unlikely hands KQs. KJs for example.. he might be overestimating his strength. Or he might not be the player that we think he is (read is after 100 hands, still a lot of room for our stats to be giving us a false picture.). He might have it in his head to bluffraise.

I would go as far as to say this. If you are going to fold to a checkraise.. you are better off just checking through.

We know the value bet is a thin one anyway and although you are giving up value, you are trading it for peace of mind and no tilting.. which migh make it worth the lost value for some.

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
does anybody else not like the preflop cap?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't. A TAG raising an ep raise from the blinds pretty much means AA-QQ/AK. So we're either a coinflip or a 4-1 dog.

[jskills]

So I guess the discussion centers around Mr. 17/9 and what would he 3-bet PF out of the SB with and 3-betthe flop with that isn't AA, KK, or QQ right?

So on the river are you thinking that you're beat 2 out of 3 times, so checking behind is correct?

I would still find myself betting for value and crying in my soup if I got raised.

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
but if you don't know what he will do it is always best to play according to game theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. It is only best if most unknowns you come up against play perfectly, in which case you should probaby quit. At any given level you can make generalizations about what a "typical" player would do and these assumptions rarely coincide with optimal play.

With regards to the hand in question, I would say that at just about ANY level online you will almost NEVER induce a fold from a better hand with AA, therefore it makes sense to NEVER CR bluff with it.

An easier example is if you're playing .02/.04 then you shouldn't use game theory HU on the end with regards to bluffing raising scare cards. Its wrong because the overwhelming majority of players at that level will simply never fold to a bluff raise on the river, and many of them will fail to notice/care about the scare card.

Can you honestly imagine a player laying down a better hand than AA to a CR on the end after playing the prior streets the way Jason did? Maybe one player in a thousand does that so there's no reason to bring game theory into it IMO. You just assume he'll pay off and act accordingly.

Is there any merit to slowplaying this flop?


LLL

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any merit to slowplaying this flop?


LLL

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite simply, no. There is some debate as to whether capping the flop or calling the flop three-bet and raising the turn is better, but not raising this flop of the bat is just silly. Everyone realizes you and the guy in the blind have good hands, and you stand to gain much more from him than you do from them. They might call two cold anyway and that'd be cool.

[PokerBob]

i think you can bet/fold. you can, but you play good. i bet and call a c/r cuz i suck.

[toss]

I like capping better for the reasons JoeTall stated.

[PokerBob]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't like the preflop cap given the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

With 2 other monkies in there, I can't see it being all that wrong, especially we are still ahed aof many hands that TAG will 3-bet with from the BB (TT, AKs, AKo, AQs).

EDIT: You may also be able to get Tag to fold a hand like KK-QQ if an A flops if you cap pf.

[Shillx]

Even if the villian said "I have 3 Jacks and I'm calling" before you check/raised according to GT, you would only be making a 3/19 BB mistake. So by doing it against a dude who goes to SD 100% of the time, you are only making a small mistake. My line that you quoted was actually intened for those times that two TAG's are playing against each other (as was the case in this hand, I just kinda assumed that they each knew the other played well). So my point was that you should sometimes c/r a worse hand if you are playing against a decent player who may or may not fold a hand better then AA here. Even if he does call everytime, making this move with AA could be very good for other reasons. Mainly that it now makes it a lot tougher for him when you make a play like this in the future.

Brad

[Joe Tall]

[ QUOTE ]
With 2 other monkies in there, I can't see it being all that wrong, especially we are still ahed aof many hands that TAG will 3-bet with from the BB (TT, AKs, AKo, AQs).


[/ QUOTE ]

I tink the TAGs range is tighter, AKs+ as he 3-bet out of the SB w/a loose BB and clown cold caller.

[ QUOTE ]
DIT: You may also be able to get Tag to fold a hand like KK-QQ if an A flops if you cap pf.

[/ QUOTE ]

If an Ace hits vs, 3-opponents, you really think betting there is going to get them all to fold in a 16SB pot?

[TStoneMBD]

this is an awesome hand.

at first i liked the idea of betfolding, but i really dont think that we can comfortably bet fold because there will be times where he makes a ridiculous checkraise with AK or has KJ or is just on some weird ass bluff. getting 18:1 is too much to be folding with those possibilities.

so then i liked the idea of checking since you lose 2 bets when behind and make 1 bet when ahead and hes gonna have KK as often as he has AA. but wait we have to consider combos and KK has 6 of them and AA has 12.

so right there is proof that a river bet is neutral ev according to basic math. of course there will also be times when the opponent has a hand like AJ, KJ, straight bluff or he checkraises AA on that board for no reason making a bet profitable.

therefore i think its fo shoz a bet.

[bakku]

[ QUOTE ]

so then i liked the idea of checking since you lose 2 bets when behind and make 1 bet when ahead and hes gonna have KK as often as he has AA. but wait we have to consider combos and KK has 6 of them and AA has 12.


[/ QUOTE ]

sorry for being nitpicky, but 3 combos of KK and 6 of AA

[TStoneMBD]

sorry i like to multiply everything by 4 and divide by 2

[Joe Tall]

bet fold because there will be times where he makes a ridiculous checkraise with AK or has KJ or is just on some weird ass bluff

I really don't think there will be ever be a time where he holds KJ and I'm perplexed to why you would include there here.

of course there will also be times when the opponent has a hand like AJ, KJ, straight bluff

What type of games are you playing in where a TAG opponent 3-bets you w/a loose BB and a clown cold calling out of the SB w/AJ or KJ??

[TStoneMBD]

no its obviously a terrible play to be checkraising with those hands but this is a small stakes game and there are alot of "tags" who dont play well.

my point is that a bet has neutral equity according to math but there are times when this tag simply doesnt have the only 2 logical hands we put him on. you cant tell me that villain will ALWAYS show KK or AA here. there are times he simply played a hand terribly and shows something else down. because of these times a bet shows profit imo.

there are also times when villain checkcalls AK after overplaying it which happens all the time with bad tags.

edit:

sorry are you arguing for a bet/fold line? if you are i can certainly reason with you cause that is a very strong line. im definitely open on a debate on whether calling a cr is right or not. the pot is so huge though that folding at this point seems a little nutsy.

[Joe Tall]

[ QUOTE ]
my point is that a bet has neutral equity according to math but there are times when this tag simply doesnt have the only 2 logical hands we put him on. you cant tell me that villain will ALWAYS show KK or AA here. there are times he simply played a hand terribly and shows something else down. because of these times a bet shows profit imo.

there are also times when villain checkcalls AK after overplaying it which happens all the time with bad tags.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just commenting on your odd range there and I totally agree w/the bet as you can see with my reply in this thread. I actually take a totally different line, and still bet the river.

[sthief09]

he has AA or KK, and very rarely AQ, QQ, or AK. he has KK about 2/3 of the time and AA 1/3 of the time. if he has KK he checkraises and you lose 2. if he has AA he calls x% of the time. for now we'll assume x is 100. so 1/3 you lose 2 and 2/3 you win 1. so it's breakeven. he'll check-fold AA more than he'll have AQ or AK so looks like a check to me

interesting. my first thought was this is a dumb question because it's an easy bet. but you have to pay off to a checkraise. if you can easily fold to a check-raise (we probably could come to think of it) it's a bet-fold

I also don't like the cap but (and I remember saying on IRC a logn time ago that I almost never cap jacks) taht's less interesting

limit also matters a lot. I wouldn't expect a 3/6 tag to check-fold the river, but if I'm playing against astro or something at 30/60 I would

[TStoneMBD]

hi josh, i disagree with you on the AA checkfolding part. i think AA never ever checkfolds here unless its a misclick. never, imo.

btw i tried msging you and your inbox was full.

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
hi josh, i disagree with you on the AA checkfolding part. i think AA never ever checkfolds here unless its a misclick. never, imo.

btw i tried msging you and your inbox was full.

[/ QUOTE ]


then it's a bet

would you check-fold AA if you were SB and you were against jason? I would I think

I have too many pm's. you can email me. it's in my profile

[toss]

If villain never bluff checkraises it would wrong to check and if villain does bluff checkraise it would wrong to bet?

My gut tells me villain won't bluff checkraise or will rarely bluff checkraise so we can safely bet/fold. Is my thinking right?

[radek2166]

I agree with Joe Tall here. I am not sure y we did not cap the flop. That being said.

I bet call the river.

Now I break it down. 1st what is he going to raise with from the SB? AA KK QQ AKs&o AQs JJ maybe 1010 and 9's.

Flop we call the 3 bet. I would cap it. I dont underestand y it was not capped ( could someone explain that to me). Due to the fact of the range of hands we are putting him on. It also helps to identify his hand more IMHO.

I think by not capping the flop we have put ourselves in postion to either Check behind on the river or Bet call.

[jason_t]

I'm sorry but I don't see what not capping the flop has to do with the decision on the river.

[SomethingClever]

Question for you guys.

What do you do if SB donks the river, given your read?

Just call, expecting to lose?

If you're really bet/folding, are you capable of folding to a donkbet? Should you be?

[shant]

A donkbet says a lot less than a checkraise.

[toss]

Now that we've formed two camps what're the results?

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
A donkbet says a lot less than a checkraise.

[/ QUOTE ]

But we're not planning to Raise/fold a donk bet are we?

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
Now that we've formed two camps what're the results?

[/ QUOTE ]

No no no no no.

[radek2166]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry but I don't see what not capping the flop has to do with the decision on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let also ask you y you didn't cap the flop



I personally think it helps to define sb's hand a bit better.

[shant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A donkbet says a lot less than a checkraise.

[/ QUOTE ]

But we're not planning to Raise/fold a donk bet are we?

[/ QUOTE ]
You just blew my mind.

[toss]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now that we've formed two camps what're the results?

[/ QUOTE ]

No no no no no.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahhh you're never going to tell us are you?

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A donkbet says a lot less than a checkraise.

[/ QUOTE ]

But we're not planning to Raise/fold a donk bet are we?

[/ QUOTE ]
You just blew my mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going for sarcasm.. did not work. My point is that a donk bet is close to a insta-call.

In the original hand a check-raise would suck, but with th pot so big and our read so shaky... I just think it is an easy call. As I said earlier, I think if you are going to fold to a checkraise on this without a solid read you are better off checking.

Because one Bad fold... negates quite a few of those "neutral EV" "value bets" .

[radek2166]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now that we've formed two camps what're the results?

[/ QUOTE ]

No no no no no.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not real concered about results. I am more concerned to understand the thinking behind the opinions.

So why no cap on the flop?

[TStoneMBD]

flair i think thats entirely wrong. folding to a checkraise adds immediate value to a bet. in fact, it adds significant value to a bet.

getting 18:1 to call a river checkraise, if you think a fold is correct it means that you dont believe a bet has 1/18th in value.

this means that KK extracts 1 and ~1/18th of a bet against you when he has this holding whereas you extract 1 bet against AA. as proven by combos, AA is twice as likely as KK which means that if you feel you can fold to a checkraise that a value bet has the +ev of almost an entire half bet!

it seems that you think you should check if you feel you need to fold to a checkraise because you dont trust your own judgment in poker. we should all trust our own judgment. clearly if we didnt trust our judgment that a fold is correct then the safe route is to just call the checkraise.

as shown, even if we call the checkraise the bet is profitable by a slight margin. folding adds significant value onto the bet.

[Joe Tall]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry but I don't see what not capping the flop has to do with the decision on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said it had anything to do with the river? I still feel the flop should be played out this way as I nearly c/r a blank on the turn w/AA, KK.

Like I said, if you didn't be the river, you misplayed every street.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry but I don't see what not capping the flop has to do with the decision on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said it had anything to do with the river? I still feel the flop should be played out this way as I nearly c/r a blank on the turn w/AA, KK.

[/ QUOTE ]

The person I replied to said

[ QUOTE ]
I think by not capping the flop we have put ourselves in postion to either Check behind on the river or Bet call.

[/ QUOTE ]

[radek2166]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry but I don't see what not capping the flop has to do with the decision on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said it had anything to do with the river? I still feel the flop should be played out this way as I nearly c/r a blank on the turn w/AA, KK.

[/ QUOTE ]

The person I replied to said

[ QUOTE ]
I think by not capping the flop we have put ourselves in postion to either Check behind on the river or Bet call.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

It was me for the fact capping the flop help to better define SB's hand.

I think the hand plays differently with a capped flop.

[Joe Tall]

Sorry, Jason...

So, did you bet the river? Or did you misplay every street??!? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

simple...you bet...you get two ways to win that way...he checkraises you call, the pot is too big to pass on now because of one big bet.

at flop, wonder why you did not slowplay, hoping to keep others in the hand and get their money too...you seem pretty strong there, board does not look very useful at that point to SB who raised preflop...

[private joker]

[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, Jason...

So, did you bet the river? Or did you misplay every street??!? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Joe, in what way did Jason misplay the turn? I read all your other posts in this thread and you never brought it up.

[thejameser]

i think the quality of the opponent would be a significant factor in my decision. i am betting the river. if its 2/4 i bet/call; too easy for a 2/4 player, even with "TAG" stats to overplay two pair on that river. if it is the 30 game on party i could bet/fold against a TAG.

edit from would to could bet/fold

[TStoneMBD]

the flop smoothcall is correct imo and there is no need to "define" the opponents hand when we are holding the nuts. you define a players hand to find out if you are behind so you can fold cheaply or to find out how to extract maximum value. the opponents hand is already pretty clearly defined.

[radek2166]

[ QUOTE ]
the flop smoothcall is correct imo and there is no need to "define" the opponents hand when we are holding the nuts. you define a players hand to find out if you are behind so you can fold cheaply or to find out how to extract maximum value. the opponents hand is already pretty clearly defined.

[/ QUOTE ]

So explain this to me like I am a 5 year old.whats the sb holding?

To me if he has an over pair he is along for the ride.

[Joe Tall]

[ QUOTE ]
the flop smoothcall is correct imo and there is no need to "define" the opponents hand when we are holding the nuts. you define a players hand to find out if you are behind so you can fold cheaply... the opponents hand is already pretty clearly defined.


[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about, "define a players hand"? You call the flop and he three bets the turn, what did you "define"?

[ QUOTE ]
find out how to extract maximum value.

[/ QUOTE ]

Capping the flop and leading the turn as the TAG will c/r a blank often w/AA, KK, is the line I that has the most value in addition to the other things I've stated in my original post.

[ErrantNight]

I don't care about the results but I'm curious as to how the discussion between you and Entity went. Unless it just rehashes everything discussed already, here. Which I think has been thoroughly exhausted.

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
the flop smoothcall is correct imo and there is no need to "define" the opponents hand when we are holding the nuts. you define a players hand to find out if you are behind so you can fold cheaply or to find out how to extract maximum value. the opponents hand is already pretty clearly defined.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think because his hand is so defined, a flop cap is better than a call-raise line. How's that? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

rob

[Entity]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't care about the results but I'm curious as to how the discussion between you and Entity went. Unless it just rehashes everything discussed already, here. Which I think has been thoroughly exhausted.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was basically me saying I bet because I know he calls and then me saying I call the c/r if it happens because I don't actually play good poker, I just pretend to. So yeah, a rehashing of all of this.

Rob

[TStoneMBD]

sorry i didnt mean to come off arrogant in my opinion that calling the flop is better than capping, im open to discussion on that. i just wanted to point out an improper use of the term defining someones hand because stuff like that is a pet peeve of mine. you really think that after youve capped the flop that you gain more than 2BBs on the turn and river from the opponent? it seems that after youve capped the flop youve clearly indicated to the opponent that your hand is the winner and they often go into checkcall mode. it could be dependant on the limit however.

[TStoneMBD]

i spoke with entity and i agree with you guys now i like the flop cap alot better. i really didnt expect KK to go extra bets after youve capped the flop but alot of people seem to checkraise these turns which adds significant equity to the line.

also, id like to add another reason why the river is a value bet... KK will often lead out after it hits the river hoping to get raised or fearing that it will get checked through. this makes the likelihood of AA much more likely.

[Joe Tall]

[ QUOTE ]
i spoke with entity and i agree with you guys now i like the flop cap alot better. i really didnt expect KK to go extra bets after youve capped the flop but alot of people seem to checkraise these turns which adds significant equity to the line.


[/ QUOTE ]

Finally, someone agrees.

[ QUOTE ]
also, id like to add another reason why the river is a value bet... KK will often lead out after it hits the river hoping to get raised or fearing that it will get checked through. this makes the likelihood of AA much more likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

This idea I like alot and may be the most sound addition to this thread, well done.

[radek2166]

I am just trying to figure out everyones range of hands that they put the SB on. Whats he 3 betting an EP raiser with? I have stated what I think he's 3 betting with.

I need to discuss more strat and become better at reading hands.

[TStoneMBD]

the SB's most likely holdings are QQ, KK and AA after hes 3bet the flop. there are also times where youll find that he has AJs but with combos considered that holding is truly unlikely. some people will play hands like 99-TT like this, but thats not always the case. youll also sometimes see people wilding playing AK in this fashion with absolutely no reason for it. in reality tho hes going to have QQ, KK or AA after he 3bets the flop a large majority of the time.

[radek2166]

I totally agree. I still See a ton of "TAGS" that will 3 bet this flop with AK

[etizzle]

you have to bet, sometimes he was getting out of line the whole time or your read was wrong or whatever. Enough to push it past the breakeven point because as sthief pointed out hes got AA 2/3 and KK 1/3 so it shouldnt matter. Except every once in a while he will have AK and have been spewing.

Also tstone makes a great point, the best play with KK is clearly to lead out lookin to get raised so you have to discount KK just a little bit.

when he raises, you call of course.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
you have to bet, sometimes he was getting out of line the whole time or your read was wrong or whatever. Enough to push it past the breakeven point because as sthief pointed out hes got AA 2/3 and KK 1/3 so it shouldnt matter. Except every once in a while he will have AK and have been spewing.

Also tstone makes a great point, the best play with KK is clearly to lead out lookin to get raised so you have to discount KK just a little bit.

when he raises, you call of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

All of you that want to worry about him getting out of line, I would like to counter with the possibility that he slowplayed QQ on the turn.

[Mathieu]

[ QUOTE ]
This river is very complex, but here are my thoughts. Don't bet if you can't fold to a check/raise. At best you will breakeven. If he will fold AA to a river bet some big % of the time, you would again check. I don't think that any opponent will check/raise AA enough to make bet-folding wrong here (if it never folded), so I like a bet-fold if you think AA will payoff and a check if you don't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Brad,

I liked your analysis. I think bet/calling is better than checking behind though. * assuming he always at least calls with AA *

Here's why:

The ration between his AA combos and KK combos is not "really" 2-1.

I got this from TOP I think. The point is that villain would sometimes bet out his set of Kings (and almost never AA). When he checks, he is now less likely to have the Kings.

Now I am not familiar with these stakes, but I am pretty sure you will agree that Villain does not check raise his Kings 100 % of the time.

Edit: Missed that this point was already pointed out by OP. Sorry.

[Mathieu]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Are the odds of him paying off with AA higher than those of him c/ring with KK?

[/ QUOTE ]

this seems to sum it up. he'll payoff with AA (6 ways) 100% of the time, so he'd need to check-raise KK (3 ways) 100% of the time for us to break even with a bet-call line. if he c/r's KK less than 100%, betting the river makes $$.

bet-folding aside.. but you'd have to be quite confident he isn't fps'ing it up to lay this one down to a c/r.

I don't think AA 3-bets the turn (which would make us more confident in KK over AA here). i must be missing something.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. I agree with your EV equation. You might have overlooked one thing though: point 1 (check raise KK less than 100 %) and 2 (more confident that it is AA rather than KK) are related.

The fact that he may sometimes bet out KK on this river (and almost never AA) makes it even more likely that he has AA once he checked. I mean more likely than what card distribution would suggest (2-1). I think Sklansky points this out in TOP in a similar example, I'd like to quote it but a friend borrowed my copy.

[blumpkin22]

I don't think it has been mentioned, but there is an interesting parallel between this hand and the hand discussed in "To Bet or Not to Bet" in Mason Malmouth's Poker Essays Volume I.

In that hand, Mason held the A /images/graemlins/heart.gifT /images/graemlins/heart.gif, and there was a limp-reraise from a player Mason was sure would only do that with aces or kings. On fourth street, Mason made the nut flush and raised his opponents bet (the third player in the hand then folded). However, the K /images/graemlins/spade.gif was on the board, and the river put a pair of fives on the board. Mason suggests the correct play is to check behind on the river, since with his A /images/graemlins/heart.gif and the K /images/graemlins/spade.gif on the board, there are an equal number of combinations of aces and kings for his opponent, and because he will get check-raised 100% of the time if he has a full house, and may not even get paid off if his opponent has aces. He also mentions that his opponent is aggressive enough that he could not fold to the check-raise.

Jason's hand is fairly different, though. In particular, there are more combinations of aces than kings with the king on the river, and in these online games the opponent will not fold aces in this pot. Bet the river.

[etizzle]

That is highly highly unlikely. Theres almost no reason for him to not fastplay QQ on the turn here. If you are raising for a free showdown with AJ or TT then slowplaying QQ will be very costly.

Also if you have a set he will make much more money by 3 betting it. I dont think he plays QQ like this more than 1% of the time.

[jason_t]

[ QUOTE ]
That is highly highly unlikely. Theres almost no reason for him to not fastplay QQ on the turn here. If you are raising for a free showdown with AJ or TT then slowplaying QQ will be very costly.

Also if you have a set he will make much more money by 3 betting it. I dont think he plays QQ like this more than 1% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I know that. My point is that I think that KQ etc. are just as unlikely here.

[shant]

[ QUOTE ]
That is highly highly unlikely. Theres almost no reason for him to not fastplay QQ on the turn here. If you are raising for a free showdown with AJ or TT then slowplaying QQ will be very costly.

Also if you have a set he will make much more money by 3 betting it. I dont think he plays QQ like this more than 1% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]
This post assumes the TAG plays good. Most of the time they just have the stats but you can't count on them to think out postflop like you just did.