AA line I've never taken before...

[Garland]

Opponent is very tight, but his preflop raise selection is wide: VP$IP = 16.52 and Preflop raise % = 7.83 over 345 hands

What do you think?

Garland

Ultimate Bet No-Limit Hold'em, $4 BB (9 handed) FTR converter on zerodivide.cx (http://www.zerodivide.cx/converter)

MP3 ($517.60)
CO ($253.70)
Button ($78.80)
SB ($418.95)
Garland ($482.40)
UTG ($399.90)
UTG+1 ($539.60)
MP1 ($231.90)
MP2 ($460.70)

Preflop: Garland is BB with A/images/graemlins/diamond.gif, A/images/graemlins/heart.gif.
<font color="#666666">5 folds</font>,<font color="#CC3333">MP3 raises to $14</font>, SB calls, <font color="#CC3333">Garland raises to $52</font>, MP3 calls $52, <font color="#666666">1 fold</font>.

Flop: ($118) K/images/graemlins/spade.gif, 6/images/graemlins/club.gif, Q/images/graemlins/diamond.gif <font color="#0000FF">(3 players)</font>
Garland checks, <font color="#CC3333">MP3 bets $76</font>, Garland folds.

[Wayfare]

If you had KK/QQ would you still check the flop?

[Woolygimp]

I think you played it well. Some might argue that you should have lead the flop though.
KK and QQ are opponents most likely holdings. Small chance he has AA. AK isn't really an option.
Then again I'm supposedly weak/tight so lets see what everyone else says.

Edit: The more I read this the more it screams KK. I think hes going to have KK over 70% of the time here. That was a big PF raise to call. You both have deep stacks, and you showed real strength PF. He doesn't want to commit his deepstack against that strength. He also sees folding Kings as being too weak, so he calls. Good Fold.

[ QUOTE ]
AK isn't really an option.

[/ QUOTE ]

why isn't AK an option? plenty of players play AKo to a re-raise to 50+. and these players will definitely play AKs for 50+. i think you're narrowing down the villain's hand range as a result of that. i lead this flop and slow down after that. or check-call and re-evaluate on the turn.

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
AK isn't really an option.

[/ QUOTE ]

why isn't AK an option? plenty of players play AKo to a re-raise to 50+. and these players will definitely play AKs for 50+. i think you're narrowing down the villain's hand range as a result of that. i lead this flop and slow down after that. or check-call and re-evaluate on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Check-Calling is horrible. Your only other option is to to lead/fold.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
AK isn't really an option.

[/ QUOTE ]

why isn't AK an option? plenty of players play AKo to a re-raise to 50+. and these players will definitely play AKs for 50+. i think you're narrowing down the villain's hand range as a result of that. i lead this flop and slow down after that. or check-call and re-evaluate on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Check-Calling is horrible. Your only other option is to to lead/fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

why is check-calling horrible? care to elaborate? it'll look like a slow play in villain's eyes in my opinion and i doubt he'd bet again on the turn w/ AK. no one can understand your thought process since you type the very minimum.

[Woolygimp]

Anyone fishy enough to call a 50 dollar re raise with AK is going to be fishy enough to fire another barrel on the turn and river. By check/calling you are slowly committing your stack with a possibility of only 2 outs. You aren't gaining any information and aren't giving the villain the chance to show the strength of his hand and let you get away cheaply.

[Triumph36]

To me his hand range is two hands based on that bet : AK or QQ. Wouldn't he re-raise with KK pre-flop? You have one crushed and one crushes you. AK's not calling a three-bet though.

Why wouldn't you lead the flop for half-pot? If he raises you can be done with it - if he calls you're in a tricky spot, but he's got to put you on a big hand as well (AA, KK, QQ, AK) - he's not going to try to bluff you out on the turn with JJ.

[Endlestorm]

Wow Garland, I seriously need to let go of AA more easily. Nice hand.

[deadmoney98]

I really think you have to lead the flop here for something. Checking just gives him too much of an opportunity to take the pot away with a hand worse than yours. The way you played it is incredibly weak tight and if anyone is paying attention will probably cause a few more people to play back at you, when they know you will fold after a PF re-raise to one bet.

By that last part, I mean there are really some metagame considerations that I think dictate essentially betting any flop after you re-raise pre-flop. I happen to think an aggressive image is always profitable, IMHO.

[Garland]

[ QUOTE ]
If you had KK/QQ would you still check the flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Against aggressive opponents, certainly. However, a lot of times I bet it myself. I do mix it up...

Garland

[Garland]

[ QUOTE ]
To me his hand range is two hands based on that bet : AK or QQ. Wouldn't he re-raise with KK pre-flop?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think more and more players are apt to just call a re-raise with KK rather than put in a 3rd raise, especially from the blinds. This goes for me too, unless I'm going against a particularily loose opponent or maniac.

Garland

[Garland]

[ QUOTE ]
I really think you have to lead the flop here for something. Checking just gives him too much of an opportunity to take the pot away with a hand worse than yours. The way you played it is incredibly weak tight and if anyone is paying attention will probably cause a few more people to play back at you, when they know you will fold after a PF re-raise to one bet.

By that last part, I mean there are really some metagame considerations that I think dictate essentially betting any flop after you re-raise pre-flop. I happen to think an aggressive image is always profitable, IMHO.

[/ QUOTE ]

You do have a valid point. However, I don't think I suffer from a weak tight image. I'm very much in there betting, raising and re-raising on the battlefield. I certainly have a tight-aggressive image.

I also think there's a time to be aggressive and a time to be practical. The guy is very, very tight...tighter than even me. He just called a massive re-raise...one that will release many smaller pocket pairs. To me, that most likely means KK or QQ. I can live with a Kxx or Qxx flop, but not both as it makes it all that much more likely that he outflopped me.

Yes, I can lead, but I think that's also a futile effort. He calls, and then what? Best case scenario, he has AK and calls or has JJ and folds. I think I can still sleep at night with this check-fold. Think about it: his bet is daring. He truly has to worry that I'm slowplaying a set when I check.

The times I'll nail his a** are the times when the flop comes xxx. That's when I'll spring the check-raise all-in trap because I know he has a big pocket pair, and I know he won't be able to let it go as he's practically pot committed.

Garland

[soah]

[ QUOTE ]
The times I'll nail his a** are the times when the flop comes xxx. That's when I'll spring the check-raise all-in trap because I know he has a big pocket pair, and I know he won't be able to let it go as he's practically pot committed.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly why "The way you played it is incredibly weak tight and if anyone is paying attention will probably cause a few more people to play back at you, when they know you will fold after a PF re-raise to one bet" makes no sense. 90% of the time I *want* lots of action when I've put a big chunk of my stack in preflop.

[Big_Jim]

[ QUOTE ]
if anyone is paying attention will probably cause a few more people to play back at you

[/ QUOTE ]
Unless we're re-raising really light... this is a good thing.

If we check/fold, they think we're more capable of a pre-flop re-raise bluff here, which is a more aggressive image.

Edit: SHould read responseds first.. oh well.

[Lucky]

bet flop

[usi34]

I like it, I think you run into QQ or KK most of the time

[xorbie]

Check folding here sucks. I would bet here with any PP I called with PF if I was villain.

[aggie]

To all those saying "nice hand sir" i have a question:

Are you insane?

Without alot more specific information on villian, i don't just think this is bad. It's terrible....Putting villian on AA - QQ based on the fact that he called your reraise and he's played tight over 300 hands is terrbile. And if he's that tight you should probably be reraising this guy with any 2.

Many people who play very tight preflop are not nearly as tight when it comes to calling raises and reraises. Many get attached to 'good' hands. They think, "I'm playing tight but i'm not going to get pushed around".....This guy could have as little as AK-AQ, or AA-77. And checking the flop is giving him a license to steal (just because he's tight doesn't mean he's not gonna bet his 10-10 to find out where he is).

Granted, this is not an ideal flop but sometimes you just gotta shove some chips in the pot. Close your eyes if necessary, bet the flop, and play poker from there!

[edit] one more comment: When you reraise preflop and get 2-way action you should be betting flop 100% of the time.

[Garland]

[ QUOTE ]
This guy could have as little as AK-AQ, or AA-77

[/ QUOTE ]

Words of a true loose-aggressive /images/graemlins/smile.gif. You have some good arguments. My check-fold was very much player dependent and the first time I've ever done it. I would bet 1/2 pot or so most of the time. And if someone is calling a massive re-raise with AK-AQ, JJ-&gt;77 without deep enough stacks and proper implied odds, then I'm going to take his money later down the road.

Garland

[Noo Yawk]

Anything but betting the flop here is just guessing. Pre-flop he could put you on a lot of hands including a steal re-raise and he is apt to call with alot more than QQ or KK. Bet the the flop and you can at least make an educated guess. There is no proof here that your behind.

[Garland]

[ QUOTE ]
one more comment: When you reraise preflop and get 2-way action you should be betting flop 100% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this sentiment. Even heads-up, there are times to check depending on the situation. I believe there are very few 100% plays in poker, and most of them revolve around the nuts and the river.

Garland

[Isura]

[ QUOTE ]
Check folding here sucks. I would bet here with any PP I called with PF if I was villain.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
To all those saying "nice hand sir" i have a question:

Are you insane?

Without alot more specific information on villian, i don't just think this is bad. It's terrible....Putting villian on AA - QQ based on the fact that he called your reraise and he's played tight over 300 hands is terrbile. And if he's that tight you should probably be reraising this guy with any 2.

Many people who play very tight preflop are not nearly as tight when it comes to calling raises and reraises. Many get attached to 'good' hands. They think, "I'm playing tight but i'm not going to get pushed around".....This guy could have as little as AK-AQ, or AA-77. And checking the flop is giving him a license to steal (just because he's tight doesn't mean he's not gonna bet his 10-10 to find out where he is).

Granted, this is not an ideal flop but sometimes you just gotta shove some chips in the pot. Close your eyes if necessary, bet the flop, and play poker from there!

[edit] one more comment: When you reraise preflop and get 2-way action you should be betting flop 100% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't disagree more with this sentiment. Just shoving chips in there is bad poker, we make money by proceeding with calculated decisions which utilize the highest ev possible. Sure our decisions may be wrong occassionally but the majority of the time they are right, and this is one of those cases. Sure he COULD have 23o...
Hell most of the time people raise they COULD have 27o, so next time I see a raise im going to push with 73o because im a huge favorite.

Seriously, this is one of the times you take the hit and fold.

[Andrew Fletcher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Check folding here sucks. I would bet here with any PP I called with PF if I was villain.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
Check folding here sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]


This advice sucks. Only an idiot would call that big of a PF raise with anything lower than QQ.
I see arguments for leading and check/folding... BUT saying check/folding sucks is just retarded.
And I know we play against idiots sometimes but thats not an excuse...

[swarm]

I would bet the flop, I had a villan call my reraise w/QQ from 12 to 50 today with 45s. He hit 3 4's on the flop hence why I know what he had and stated that he had 3 to 1 on this call. Some villans don't understand odds and will call with all types of things.

The tough decision comes if he just calls flat calls the bet, i'm probably ready to dump it now unless i have a good read on the guy.

[aggie]

[ QUOTE ]
I couldn't disagree more with this sentiment. Just shoving chips in there is bad poker, we make money by proceeding with calculated decisions which utilize the highest ev possible. Sure our decisions may be wrong occassionally but the majority of the time they are right, and this is one of those cases. Sure he COULD have 23o...
Hell most of the time people raise they COULD have 27o, so next time I see a raise im going to push with 73o because im a huge favorite.

Seriously, this is one of the times you take the hit and fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

i often make bold statements on this forum and then somebody picks apart everything i said and basically puts me in my place....This is NOT one of those times.....Check folding this flop IS horrible. And this is one of the worst counter arguments i have seen.

If we think villian only calls a preflop reraise with only AA, KK and QQ we should reraise him EVERY time.....He's raising 7.83% of his hands (many more than just AA-QQ)....We'll pick up so many pots right? WRONG!!!! The reason we don't do this is because people DO call reraises with other hands. And since we hold 2 aces and theres a king and a queen on the flop, hands like 10-10 and J-J become MUCH more likely. Sets aren't that easy to flop.

And as a general poker rule, it's good to have the initiative. If i had reraised preflop with JJ i would definitely bet the flop (even though i was very likely beaten). Betting out with AA is an absolute no brainer. Garland said this is the first time he's ever done something like this. He'd be well off if he made it his last

[Garland]

[ QUOTE ]
I would bet the flop, I had a villan call my reraise w/QQ from 12 to 50 today with 45s

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
VP$IP = 16.52

[/ QUOTE ]

I seriously doubt a villain who plays so few hands will have something like 45s.

Garland

[aggie]

[ QUOTE ]
I believe there are very few 100% plays in poker

[/ QUOTE ]

I see this all the time and understand where it comes from....But do Realize that it's wrong!!! We should muck 72o under the gun in a 10-handed limit holdem game 100% of the time. And there are infinite other situations that are just as automatic.

Very well played.

[billyjex]

i think i should call every TAG reraise if i'm in position if they give up this easy.

[UOPokerPlayer]

Puzzling, but i think i kind of get it. You can lead into him and he's going to fold worse hands. He probably doesn't lead with worse hands if he's really weak/tight. After he calls the reraise pf, your range really deals with how tight the opponent is. I know (few) opponents that calling the reraise means AA-QQ and AK. A lot of those same opponent would push pf with AA and KK. You're either crushing AK or you're crushed by a set. Does the flop bet mean anything to you? Is the amount ~2/3 mean he wants a call or is this just standard. I really think this is a weak line, but I can't see a better one. Leading I think is better, then shutting down if called. If he's really that weak tight, you'll usually get a cheap showdown and the AA-QQ will lead the turn, showing you you're beat.

As always, this really comes down to a read, and if this is the guy that doesn't play without the nuts or close, his pf and flop indicate you're behind his range.

If he's really weak-tight, you're probably not worried about him taking the pot from you, so it's all about value.
I think leading gets the most from AK, so that's what I'd do.

[Garland]

[ QUOTE ]
If i had reraised preflop with JJ i would definitely bet the flop (even though i was very likely beaten)

[/ QUOTE ]

I like a lot of what you're expressing, but I don't feel it's prudent to put money in the pot if you feel you were "very likely beaten."

Garland

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I couldn't disagree more with this sentiment. Just shoving chips in there is bad poker, we make money by proceeding with calculated decisions which utilize the highest ev possible. Sure our decisions may be wrong occassionally but the majority of the time they are right, and this is one of those cases. Sure he COULD have 23o...
Hell most of the time people raise they COULD have 27o, so next time I see a raise im going to push with 73o because im a huge favorite.

Seriously, this is one of the times you take the hit and fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

i often make bold statements on this forum and then somebody picks apart everything i said and basically puts me in my place....This is NOT one of those times.....Check folding this flop IS horrible. And this is one of the worst counter arguments i have seen.

If we think villian only calls a preflop reraise with only AA, KK and QQ we should reraise him EVERY time.....He's raising 7.83% of his hands (many more than just AA-QQ)....We'll pick up so many pots right? WRONG!!!! The reason we don't do this is because people DO call reraises with other hands. And since we hold 2 aces and theres a king and a queen on the flop, hands like 10-10 and J-J become MUCH more likely. Sets aren't that easy to flop.

And as a general poker rule, it's good to have the initiative. If i had reraised preflop with JJ i would definitely bet the flop (even though i was very likely beaten). Betting out with AA is an absolute no brainer. Garland said this is the first time he's ever done something like this. He'd be well off if he made it his last

[/ QUOTE ]

Aggie I'm not trying to put you in your place, but there is an absolute argument for Garlands play here. Alot of AVERAGE PLAYERS (WITH 16% VPIP) check behind here with JJ-22 because they are afraid of a C/R on a damn scary flop against a PF re-raiser. Not only that, Garland made a MASSIVE pf raise, someone with 16% VPIP doesn't call that with random cards.

[Hattifnatt]

well played sir.

[aggie]

[ QUOTE ]
I like a lot of what you're expressing, but I don't feel it's prudent to put money in the pot if you feel you were "very likely beaten."


[/ QUOTE ]

Why? I sometimes make giant reraises when i'm POSITIVE i'm beaten just to see if my opponent will fold. You do realize you don't need the best hand to win in poker right?

[Garland]

[ QUOTE ]
Why? I sometimes make giant reraises when i'm POSITIVE i'm beaten just to see if my opponent will fold. You do realize you don't need the best hand to win in poker right?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I know about not having the best hand to win (i.e. bluffing), but in the specific scenario of a JJ reraise on a KQx board and you feel you're "very likely beaten," what better hand is going to fold other than perhaps AQ?

Garland

[Woolygimp]

Ok to understand why a weaker line is better than a lead on this flop you have to put yourself in the villains shoes. Based on the information Garland provided the Villain is your average weak/tight.

Both Garland and Villain have deep stacks. Villain raises to 10, then Garland (correctly) re-raises him to 50.

If YOU were the Villain what would you do here (with deep stacks) holding KK?

I'd fold. I really would, considering the stack sizes. Some of the looser players would push. Most "Weak/Tight" Players here would think folding PF to be far too weak, while pushing against a very likely AA as not a very prudent play.

So he calls.
[Keep in mind hes 16% VPIP and a very weak/tight player. It is VERY unlikely he's making this play with 45s, j10s, 22, 1010, or JJ]

Now lets assume villain called with 45s, j10s, 22, 1010, or JJ.

Villain says to himself, "Ok, This guy just re-raised me 50 preflop and when the flop landed high he checked it to me..." Do you REALLY think your average weak/tight player is going to bet into a very likely C/R against another deep stack?

<font color="red"> Would you guys really bet this if checked to with a hand like JJ/1010 or 22? I think thats far too loose... Guys raises you to 50 PF and then checks to you on the flop? Cmon... It smells fishy. </font>

Regardless, understand this guy is just as scared of Garlands hand as Garland is of his. In fact less so, since this guy (again) is a weak/tight.

Guys I implore you to consider stack sizes because it is the most important factor. Shortstacked players are more likely to make moves and are less scared of their plays, for right reason. &lt;Most of those reason's revolving over building a large pot and implied odds&gt;

This player is not making a move here with anything except QQ-KK-AK. He would bet AK, I'll give you that BUT again he won't have AK often enough here to warrant a lead.

I agree 100% with Garlands play, and ask people who disagree to strongly reconsider the play and understand ALL of the factors before making an argument.

[aggie]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course I know about not having the best hand to win (i.e. bluffing), but in the specific scenario of a JJ reraise on a KQx board and you feel you're "very likely beaten," what better hand is going to fold other than perhaps AQ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you answered the question yourself.....AQ.....Other hands that will fold include the ones that you still beat or tie including JJ-77, ect. When i say "very likely beaten" I mean &gt;50% of the time. I don't mean 100% of the time.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Check folding here sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]


This advice sucks. Only an idiot would call that big of a PF raise with anything lower than QQ.
I see arguments for leading and check/folding... BUT saying check/folding sucks is just retarded.
And I know we play against idiots sometimes but thats not an excuse...

[/ QUOTE ]

Only an idiot would call with worse than QQ and only an idiot would bet it on this flop. Kinda ironic, isn't it, in that it makes my point.

Also, I'd like to point out that $52 isn't much more than what villain could calll any PP and play for set value.

[aggie]

FYI...I found this interesting so i reposted it in high stakes....Hope you don't mind Garland....

LINK (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&amp;Number=4160309&amp;an=0&amp;page=0&amp;gone w=1#UNREAD)

[yvesaint]

villain/garland hardly have deep stacks at all

also, woolygimp, youd really fold KK to a re-raise pre-flop with deepstacks? stay at 2/4, youll get run over anywhere else

edit: wait, ignore what i just said, i guess youre talking from a weak-tight villains point of view? if thats the case, forget what i just said

[Woolygimp]

[ QUOTE ]
villain/garland hardly have deep stacks at all

also, woolygimp, youd really fold KK to a re-raise pre-flop with deepstacks? stay at 2/4, youll get run over anywhere else

[/ QUOTE ]

Look... Based on the stats Garland gave me I have no reason the villain is making a re-steal PF. I understand people are much more aggressive at higher limits or at different tables, don't assume I can't loosen up to adapt. I understand im probaly the most weak/tight member of the MSNL forum, but don't assume my play is wrong. Sure people like BigJim and the better players are making 10+PTBB/100 or more, but I'm happy with my 8.15PTBB/100. My TAG play is working just fine at the limit I'm at and haven't had a real reason to change it.

In most situations I would probaly be all in PF, but not with the read garland gave us.

[Garland]

[ QUOTE ]
We should muck 72o under the gun in a 10-handed limit holdem game 100% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

*tsk* *tsk* using a limit poker example to counter a no-limit argument *tsk* *tsk*

Garland

[aggie]

[ QUOTE ]

*tsk* *tsk* using a limit poker example to counter a no-limit argument *tsk* *tsk*


[/ QUOTE ]

Okay...We should muck it 100% of the time in no-limit as well....It's just clearer in limit and i was responding to where you said 'in poker, nothing is 100%'

[Garland]

[ QUOTE ]
When i say "very likely beaten" I mean &gt;50% of the time. I don't mean 100% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, because I read "very likely beaten" to imply further to 100% than something like 51%, maybe 80% or more. I guess we're on the same then about that.

Garland

[PokerFink]

[ QUOTE ]
scenario of a JJ reraise on a KQx board and you feel you're "very likely beaten," what better hand is going to fold other than perhaps AQ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently AA will fold on this flop.

[Garland]

Got me there.

Garland

[ QUOTE ]
To all those saying "nice hand sir" i have a question:

Are you insane?

Without alot more specific information on villian, i don't just think this is bad. It's terrible....Putting villian on AA - QQ based on the fact that he called your reraise and he's played tight over 300 hands is terrbile. And if he's that tight you should probably be reraising this guy with any 2.

Many people who play very tight preflop are not nearly as tight when it comes to calling raises and reraises. Many get attached to 'good' hands. They think, "I'm playing tight but i'm not going to get pushed around".....This guy could have as little as AK-AQ, or AA-77. And checking the flop is giving him a license to steal (just because he's tight doesn't mean he's not gonna bet his 10-10 to find out where he is).

Granted, this is not an ideal flop but sometimes you just gotta shove some chips in the pot. Close your eyes if necessary, bet the flop, and play poker from there!

[edit] one more comment: When you reraise preflop and get 2-way action you should be betting flop 100% of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am new to this particular forum, and this post shocked me. I was reading through the post waiting for this type of answer and finally I found it.

Ok granted, it is quite possible that the dude flopped a set, but there are a bunch of other hands he could have to bet here. You just HAVE to lead out - how can you play AA like this, how can you play poker like this ? Its way too passive IMO

Like this guy said, the opponent could easily have 99-JJ, or AK, maybe even less. Your check looks like you have the underpair and you have given up the hand. I know I would bet in his spot, with ANYTHING, you are either slowplaying a monster or giving up the hand, and s worth betting to find out.

Maybe you made a great play, and if you are happy then that is fine, but I really think you are giving your opponent way too much respect.

BTW I play these stakes, and I would say I am a LAG, maybe that is where we disagree, but its just my 2 cents.

[tdomeski]

you aren't re raising enough pf is this is a possible line you would ever take with AA...

just in a vacuum this hand still sucks...if you want to play small ball just don't re raise pf

[meleader2]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
AK isn't really an option.

[/ QUOTE ]

why isn't AK an option? plenty of players play AKo to a re-raise to 50+. and these players will definitely play AKs for 50+. i think you're narrowing down the villain's hand range as a result of that. i lead this flop and slow down after that. or check-call and re-evaluate on the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Check-Calling is horrible. Your only other option is to to lead/fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

yep. lead fold. who else raises you besides kk/qq? i see ak based on this players stats falling into passive mode.

[Finite_Risk]

This hand also illustrates the value of position.

If Garland had position in this hand and was checked to on this flop...easy check behind for the same reasons as why he folded in the real hand.

Garland - if instead you were led INTO here, I assume you also fold?

argreed. hes tight but does that not mean he might save that tightness to fire in a bluff when he thinks it will work?

[FlyingStart]

No.. If he's a good player it could mean that, but in general if he is tight, he is less likely to bluff. Game theory so to speak

edit: I mean, if one were to use the agrument that he was loose and somewhat aggressive and therefore might be bluffing, it is not possible to use the argument that he is tight and therefore also is bluffing. In that case he would always be more likely to bluff..

[wtfsvi]

Hi there Garland.

Very interesting hand. Really shows some of the value position can have in NL, 'cause if he has AK, you are basically [cencored].

I think it's close, but fwiw, I like it.

(You'd be better off having more reads than his preflop stats after 350 hands, though.)

[Garland]

[ QUOTE ]
Garland - if instead you were led INTO here, I assume you also fold?

[/ QUOTE ]

This would mean a different sequence of bet actions as I would have position. Then I would have to have the same type of opponent...one who has very tight stats, like original villain. Again, I usually don't let go of AA that easily post-flop, and it would take a specific set of circumstances to do so.

Garland

If you "know" he is only going to call this pre-flop raise with KK-QQ then why make the large raise? Were you just afraid to play the hand out of position? In that case I think you were better off just pushing pre-flop if you were going to give it up on the flop so quickly.
With the large raise you made pre-flop, and the read you have on this guy, I think you are in a lot of trouble on the flop and might be better off giving up the hand to even the slightest resistance.
However, if I am the villain I bet the flop here almost every time when checked to if I have a missed set or AK/AQ to see where I am at. So I think it is still correct to bet the flop to see where you are at.
Also, if villain will only call your reraises with AA-QQ then you should be raising him more often.

[Garland]

[ QUOTE ]
If you "know" he is only going to call this pre-flop raise with KK-QQ then why make the large raise?

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously I don't know he has KK or QQ when he first raises, so that is quite silly. His call of the re-raise gives me a bigger clue to his holdings. Secondly, SB called so it's entirely possible that the original raiser will fold and SB will call. This sequence of events is also ok, and in fact better for me as I have position and SB could have lesser cards than the original raiser.

[ QUOTE ]
Were you just afraid to play the hand out of position?

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not. I know to a certain extent the range of his hands. I'm praying for a raggidy xxx flop...one where I can check-raise all-in and expect a call from an overpair. Instead I'm given a flop where I'm screwed against the range of hands I put him on due to his tightness. Literally, if he has KK, QQ or AK, I've "lost" (AK will put me to the test by the turn or the river when I stop betting after the flop).

[ QUOTE ]
In that case I think you were better off just pushing pre-flop if you were going to give it up on the flop so quickly.

[/ QUOTE ]

Entirely silly statement. Raising all-in will make all hands except the case AA to fold. Of course I want action with my AA, but I want to make them pay. I want KK and QQ to re-raise me pre-flop thinking I'm FOS. It's the horror flop I didn't want.

[ QUOTE ]
However, if I am the villain I bet the flop here almost every time when checked to if I have a missed set or AK/AQ to see where I am at.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all I don't believe in the slightest that villain has AQ. Secondly, if he has AK, then I'm going to be screwed (see above). Obviously if I increase my villain's range of hands to include more pocket pairs (JJ, TT, 99 and such) then betting the flop would be correct. I just didn't in this case.

Thanks for your thoughts.

Garland

[ryanghall]

I don't know why everyone hates this fold so much. I'm guessing he was behind here. He may have to call 2 more bets to find that out, as well. If he's ahead, he'll win much LESS than he'll lose if he's behind.

I think on these boards, people are too concerned with not being "weak-tight", whatever that actually is. (I'll tell you what it is, it's probably the right way to play mid-stakes poker unless you're REAL good).

This is an interesting line, although I have an alternative one. Making a smallish, maybe 1/2 pot flop bet could also have some merit, as it could look like you're milking a set. What would you think if your opponent bet 1/2 pot after reraising and this flop came out? If he raises, you're done with the hand at that point. If he calls and he *doesn't* have the set, he'll almost certainly check behind on the turn and then you can check/call the river. If he bets the turn, fold.

Ryan

[bigfishead]

Sometimes, the best way to look at a hand is if you were in the "callers" spot.

In this spot, if I think I am being given an opportunity to make the other guy laydown when I have 10's, J's, 9's, A10s, AJs, er whatever, I will bet this flop when checked to by the PF re-raiser.

BUT!!!..if I flop a set here, I will check behind wanting him to fire on the turn!! In this case with Garland, it reminds me of many times a tightass has made a wacky call preflop. If I'm garland here and check this flop, I will call the flop bet and fire on any turn card! This now puts the tight-boy to task. If he flops a set, oh well I lose my chips...I've lost my chips before. But if ha also has top two which is also a likely possibility, I still have counterfeit outs to win...so it's a semi-bluff. And if he has AK, I may just get all his chips. yet if he has AQ he'll likely fold and I'll still get a decent pot and not leave him a chance to check behind and get a free river card that could crush me.