AJo 20-40

[mike l.]

i openraise from early position w/ AJo in decent 20-40 game im running over. late position decent player reraises. im getting the sense that him and his friend sitting next to him, both decent players who play all the time and presumably beat the game, are getting sick of me raising so much and stacking the chips and turning over good starters so often. awful big blind calls and i call.

the flop is AJ5. checked to 3 bettor and he bets, bb folds and i call.

the turn is T rainbow. i checkraise him and he calls.

the river is a Q. what's my play?

[Zele]

Check and fold. I'm surprising myself by suggesting that, given the 8.5 big bets in the pot, but I can't imagine how you could have the best hand at this point. I don't know the player, but you say he's decent and he reraised your EP raise, so I figure him for at JJ-AA, AQ, or AK, or possibly AJs, KQs, or TT, i.e. you're up the creek, and on a miracle might be tied.

P.S. Why the EP open-raise with AJo?

[SossMan]

Options:
1 - Bet out....Not really an option since he wouldn't fold a set or AQ or (obviously) a K. The only hand I can see him calling you with here that you can beat is A-10. I don't think that you have a 55% chance of having the best hand if called required for a value bet.
2. Check and fold...I don't think this is really an option since there will be 10 big bets in the pot and the odds are probably better than 10 to 1 that he doesn't have you beat.
3. Check and Call...I think this is the best option. I would guess that you are at best a 50-50 shot to win. With the size of the pot, you simply cant fold.
4. Check and raise...I think the chances are too great that he has a K to risk two big bets on a check raise bluff. The pot would be so big at that point he would almost have to call with anything.

Thoughts? Comments?
I'm a little new, so I would love some analysis on my analysis from some of the more seasoned posters. Thanks. /forums/images/icons/blush.gif

[Diplomat]

Hi Mike,

Unless you were isolated by AT, AJ, QJ, 99 or 88, (and I don't think he'd bet and call the turn with 99 or 88) you probably are beat here. Maybe you had a read at the table, but on the facts presented, I think you've got a check-fold (unless you really think your opponent is good enough to go this whole way and bluff at the end...even then...)

I'd want to know what you know about this player, ie what he's willing to isolate with. The broader range he isolates with, the more likely I am to check/call or even bet. The more he respects you the less likely.

Another line of throught would be to bet and fold to a raise, trying to fold the same hand or a slightly better hand. (AJ, AQ, TT)

Actually, I think I like this option the most. Bet and fold to a raise.

-Diplomat

[Rockfish]

Need more information. The obvious answer is that you need to be fairly sure that you will have a winner if he raises to bet, otherwise, check and call.

What are the re-raising standards of your antagonist? Does he expect you to be raising with quality hands or is he on tilt a little because you're running over the game?

It seems to me that the problem is that you raised in EP with AJo. If he knows that you are raising with only good hands and that's what he expects you to show down and he's playing rationally, there are not too many hands he would re-raise with that you can beat. You're dead to AA, KK, AK, AQ, QQ, JJ, TT and some other less likely hands that contain a King such as KQ and KJ. The good news is you can beat AT and 99.

I don't think you can bet even if he's likely to call you down with AT or 99 or worse. I think your best play is to check and hope he bets a hand that he would not call with. You can't fold, but I don't think you can bet out either.

Check and call.

Rockfish

[Diplomat]

I like the signature. /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

I'm not sure I agree though. At first I thought the same thought (as you can see from my mixed up post), but by betting you add another way to win, (him folding a better hand) and you have a somewhat easy fold if he raises.

I do agree though that it is quite player dependent. Almost every hand in poker is that way.

-Diplomat

[Rockfish]

Your post showed up while I was composing mine and I hadn't considered the possibility of betting out and folding to a raise.

I agree that you want to increase your chances of winning the hand. I think that against a tight predictable player you could bet out and fold to a raise, but then why would you bet. If he's tight and predictable then presumably he will only call with a hand that ties you or beats you.

A slightly tricky player might bluff-raise and we don't know enough about the antagonist to evaluate. We weren't there.

Given what we are told and that we want to increase our chances of winning I say check and call as you will get to show down. No wait. He won't raise unless he has a King, right, because the board is just as scary to him as it is to us. If you bet out and he raises you fold. OK. But he knows that the board is scary and if he also knows we'll fold to a raise rather than pay off he might just try it. In which case we have to call the raise so we lose two bets instead of one. So we should check and call. OK.

No, our hand is probably beat but just in case I would like to show down to increase my chances of winning.

Now if the antagonist is on tilt, which I referred to in my original post, then we have to find a way to show down because he could be betting a strange Ace or something else we can beat.

No I am not related to elysium.

Rockfish

[mike l.]

"Need more information....Does he expect you to be raising with quality hands or is he on tilt a little because you're running over the game?"

i wasnt sure. i gave you all the information i had at the time. i could tell he and his butt-buddy were a little irritated and surprised to see me doing so well and playing reasonably tight/at least showing good starters at showdown, but i didnt assume that meant he was tilting in any way really. i didnt have anymore info than what i initially gave in other words.

[Chris Gabriel]

First off, unless you are just catching cards, you probably should have just mucked AJo from EP anyways. Second, I would lean toward check/fold for the simple reason that I can't see any hand you can beat. Remember, he three bet you preflop, bet the flop and turn, and still called your raise. You said he's a winning player. What could he have that he would do all of that with?

Gabe

[mike l.]

"What could he have that he would do all of that with?"

that was what i was thinking when i auto-bet the river without really thinking about the fact that that river card now made it impossible for him to call with anything i beat. so he called and i showed my hand and he mucked. two pair good. score one for not thinking.

[SossMan]

Results notwithstanding....
I think the fact that he's a good player indicates that he smells weakness when checked to on the end after being shown strength on previous streets. This scary board, combined with the size of the pot, makes it a perfect time for him to try a bluff-bet.
It (the size of the pot) also makes it correct for the hero to call.
Bottom line, I think there is more than a 10% chance that the hero has the winner. To me it's a clear case of simple pot odds. (I think)

[Rockfish]

For what it's worth I probably would have done the same thing. The key is you characterized him as something like 'sick of seeing me show down quality winners'. Hence my question about whether he was on tilt. Seems like he probably was which would make the river bet a possible bet for value. He probably made a tilt call on the river with his strange weak Ace hoping you didn't have it this time. You have to be there to make that call.

Thanks for the opportunity to analyze the situation. That's how I learn.

Rockfish

P.S. How did he play afterwards? Did this one send him over the tilted edge?

[mike l.]

"P.S. How did he play afterwards? Did this one send him over the tilted edge?"

no. he played the same as he plays all the time basically which is a little too loose and a little too aggressive (at least preflop and on the flop). the first time i ever played against him i somehow got into a conversation w/ a player on my right about some hand he was just in and i made the comment that i felt the player in question here was "weak and predictable". i guess i purposefully said it just loud enough so he could hear it. since then ive realised that he is probably a winning player, but certainly not especially skilled, and if i continue to play a higher caliber of poker than the slop i normally tend towards i should have no problem taking his money consistently.

[mike l.]

one of the interesting things about the hand is in retrospect im pretty certain this player would not have bet on the end with anything i beat. for instance im almost sure he held something like A8s instead of something like JTs or QJs (i beat all those hands, but im just saying i think he probably had a pair of aces w/ no kicker). anyways he's not smart or tricky or stupid or brave enough (depending on how you want to look at it) imo to bet that naked pair of aces on the river hopng for me to fold a better hand (which i wouldve).

so my bet on the river (as unthinking as it was) was actually both a bet for value and a bluff-stopper (if my read that he wouldnt bet a hand with showdown value as a bluff is incorrect). so even if my hand is bad, i just lose one more big bet rather than losing the whole pot. yikes this river stuff is confusing. glad i didnt think about it. i better go read TOP again tonight. i wonder what skalnsky would say about the river here?

[SossMan]

So, would you have folded to a raise?

[mike l.]

"So, would you have folded to a raise?"

yes in a heartbeat