NLHE, AK, 2 pair on river, whats my play?

[Acesover8s]

.5-1$ NLHE game. I ($99) limp UTG with AKo. One other limper, button min raises. Blinds leave. I think about reraising but decide to let him outplay me after the flop.

Flop comes 268 rainbow, checked to him, who I expect to autobet, but strangely, checks.

The turn is the As putting a twoflush up. Checked to button who bets 3$. I raise it to $10. He minraises back, I call.

The turn is an offsuit King, I check and he bets all in for the rest of my stack.

Now here's the history, we have just played a hand where this player bet 3$ into a pot a bit larger on a J96 board. I raised him to 10$, he min raised me back, I called. He bluffed the river, I called, my AJ won. So, he's a bluffer, but he knows that I know hes a bluffer, and I know that he knows I'll call him.

So, my gut feeling is that he's bluffing, but he has got to know that I would assume that, and he has to know I have an Ace at a minimum, so hes expecting to take my stack. I've made this call several times before and kicked myself, but I'm sure if I fold he's going to show me 77.

What would you do?

[ML4L]

Hey Aces,

I am as tight as anyone when facing overbets on the river, but I just don't see any way to get away from this hand. You're getting about 3 to 2 on your money. And while the fact that you just caught him would make me wary, you could look at it this way: he "knows" that you "know" that he can't be bluffing, so now would be a great time to try another one... But, getting into all that you'll just outthink yourself. You have top two. Call.

ML4L

[Zag]

Call. No doubt in my mind. He might show you KK, or maybe even JJ, but I doubt it.

Persistent bluffers don't think that way, really. They think, "He caught me bluffing last time, and he knows I know that he knows I know that he caught me, so he will think I will not dare to bluff again. It's the perfect time."

Also, he easily could hold K9s or even KQ and he thinks he is betting for value. I have a hard time believing he could have QT, because anyone who would raise with that preflop will also raise with it on the flop.

I suspect that JJ is the most likely hand that you are behind. It is one that a persistent bluffer might have made a small raise preflop and then checked that flop (as a slowplay). But that's a monster under the bed -- if that's what he has, he gets your chips and buy in again.

[tewall]

Well you didn't post the pot sizes, so my calculations my be off. They sound a bit different from ML4L's, but it's not really material. The simple answer is it sounds like you think it's 50/50 if he's bluffing, and you're getting much better odds than that from the pot, so you call. If he were more like 30% likely to be bluffing, your decision would be harder.

Another thing which adds to calling, brought out by another poster, is that he may actually be betting for value, but your hand may be better than his.

I'm just curious, but if you min raised him back pre-flop, might he raise you again?

[Dylan Wade]

[ QUOTE ]
Flop comes 268 rainbow, checked to him, who I expect to autobet, but strangely, checks.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a big sign for me in no limit, and very predictable in my own play. I bet when I have a draw, and check/call when I've got the goods. As tempting as those two pair look, it's just not good enough to call an all-in. Really, you don't want to hit two pair with AK or even TPTK, you want to hit the nut flush or nut straight. I don't often draw for overcards with AK in NL. I can rarely say with confidence that the overcards are clean outs, and when someone tries to buy a pot it's a very tough call. very easy to let go on that flop, but you kinda got sucked in on this..If you *flopped* two-pair things are much different ( full house draw).

I'm guessing you got beat by a set of duces sixes or eights.. all of which are easily jammable pre-flop.

Against some players I'd call this (someone who prefers value betting over slow-play, like limit players), but based on your quoted comment above, that's definitely *fold*.

[AJo Go All In]

JJ would be one pair, not a set.

Also, you have to call. I think it would be a tough decision against a reasonable opponent. Against the player you described, there is no decision.

[jerrybai125]

I think this is a definite call. He puts you on an A with a mediocore kicker and his all in on the river is screaming at u to fold your ace, but he has no idea you have AK. Would he play AA or 88 the same way? If this is a very tricky player, i think he checks behind on the flop to act like hes slowplaying a monster, but really wants a free card, since he knows you know he would autobet it. Then continues with the bluff till the river. I think if he had 88 he would bet the flop knowing that you know he would autobet it. And in ur previous hand it didnt seem like he put u all in on the river where u called with ur AJ. The big quesiton is does he think you would call the all in? and I dont think he thinks you would call the all in basically because he puts u on an A without a great kicker. And just like the other posters, the best time to bluff is right after you got caught bluffing against a thinking player.

[Mackas]

Fair enough, you know he's a bluffer and he knows that but I think its important to know the size of his stack, what is the size of his all in on the river? The point is he may be a bluffer but his previous bluff appears to have been in lesser amounts in the region of ($10 - $20). If that is the case and this is for a more substantial amount (closer to your stack size which i think you said was $99 so i presume the all-in is in the region of say $70) you have to be wary. From his point of view why risk that amount on a bluff when half that should still push out a moderate hand and if you have a big hand he figures to get called and lose anyway. Obviously if he has been prone to bluffs for his whole stack that is a different matter and you must call. Otherwise and assuming the all in is substantial (approx $70) I think he has to have either trips or two pair himself so a call might still be in order. Overall though I would agree with DyalnW in that trips on the flop is most likely and my instinct would be I was beaten. That said I would find it hard to get away and would probably end up calling anyway with heart in mouth praying to see a bluff or a lower two pair.

[ML4L]

I put him on AK.

[Acesover8s]

Some information that may not have been clear, the stack sizes were approximately 100$, so the all in was for 70$ into a pot of around 40$. On the prior hand he did bet all in on the river with his bluff, but there was only 36$ more to bet there as my stack was smaller.

I am surprised at how many people said to call here. I expected about 50/50. At the time I should have figured the estimated probabilities of him holding hands that I beat vs hands that beat me vs hands that I tie and decide the proper action there, as one of the posters alluded to.

At the time however, I just thought about how many levels to think it through. I decided that he could not expect me to fold any Ace, and it was clear that I had an Ace, so he had to hold a set or two pair, and that two pair could very well be AK, and my PLO/8 training told me to let it go.

So reluctantly after thinking the full 30 seconds, I folded. To which he showed pocket 33s. So, I left the table so I wouldn't tilt.

I know I overthought this hand. And I can't help thinking that since it was a pokerstars hand I gave the player more credit than he deserved, certainly more than i would've on Party or UB.

[Zag]

[ QUOTE ]
JJ would be one pair, not a set.

[/ QUOTE ]

I meant he might have JJ in his hand. With the J on the flop, it makes a set.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you have to call. I think it would be a tough decision against a reasonable opponent. Against the player you described, there is no decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

I totally agree with both these statements.

[Zag]

Well, not to say I told you so, or anything, but ... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Anyway, consider it another way: against an unknown opponent, poker theory gives a certain percentage to which you should bluff: such that someone who calls you down all the time would lose exactly the same as someone who never calls you down. If you bluff too much or too little, then an aware opponent can make money by always calling you down (if you bluff too much), or never calling you down (if you bluff too little).

Now consider that you are the aware opponent. You have identified that this player bluffs too much. Rather than trying to guess which cases are the few that he isn't bluffing, it is reasonable just to call him down all the time, until he adjusts his bluffing percentage. Since you are not always the one in position to make this call, he probably won't ever adjust (that is, as long as you do a good acting job that you were seriously considering folding).

Does this mean that you will sometimes be calling him when he has the goods? Of course. But, by definition, if he bluffs too often, then you will be making money overall.

[Acesover8s]

You make a very good point, and I'm experienced enough to have thought that through at the time, but I choked.

The best piece of advice I received on this hand was from my girlfriend who walked into the room just as I hit the fold button. She said, "You know you had two pair, right?"

[AJo Go All In]

For the record, I know that JJ means "JJ in his hand."

Also for the record, there was no J on the flop, turn or river. So "JJ in his hand" would be one pair.

[Zag]

LOL. Sorry about being dense.

When I wrote my first note, and when I wrote the second one, I glanced back up at the original post and looked at the wrong flop -- the one in the paragraph that starts "Now here's the history, ..."

Well, I knew one of us was missing something. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Guy McSucker]

I am surprised at how many people said to call here. I expected about 50/50.

Me too. And when it's 50/50, you call because "it's more fun that way" /images/graemlins/smile.gif

I can add only this to what Zag said. You can beat lots of legitimate hands here (how about A8, baby?) and you can beat bluffs. The previous hand which played out exactly the same way turned out to be a bluff. To my mind, there are now two possible scenarios: he is either a clever player using past history to try to induce a call, or a blundering fool who doesn't realise he is giving his hands away by his betting patterns.

How many of your online enemy fall into the first category? Yeah, that's what I thought: the second is more likely, so you probably should call. And if he's in the first camp, you can't outplay him since he's such a clever fellow, so you resort to game theory, read Zag's post, and call.

Guy.