Useless Bluff?

[PokerBabe(aka)]

Here is a hand I played today at Mirage 20-40. I am on the button with A,K clubs. 5 limpers to me and I limp. SB (a tightish playing tourist) now raises and everyone calls. I am hoping for suited cards (duh) and instead see J /images/graemlins/heart.gif J /images/graemlins/club.gif 2 /images/graemlins/diamond.gif. Well now, I have missed this board entirely, my sb raiser has QQ, KK or AA and I am pretty much done with the hand, right? Yes, sure, of course.... but now the SB CHECKS IT and its checked to limper #3 who bets. Limpers 4 and 5 fold. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

I still think that Sb has only QQ, KK or AA. I also think limper #3 is making a play for the pot. So, I raise to see if I am correct. I think there is SOME chance SB folds right away. Surely, with one bettor and a raiser, he's got to put one of us on a Jack, eh?. To my chagrin, SB calls the 2 bets. Limper #3 folds as planned so it's one down one to go.

4 /images/graemlins/heart.gif on the turn. SB checks to the Babe who bets, of course.

I am thinking that there is NO card I want to see on the river. /images/graemlins/grin.gif I am also thinking I have made a horrendous mess of this hand, since SB ain't folding that big pair no matter what I do. I am doomed to muck on the river. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

As I am lamenting my play, the K /images/graemlins/diamond.gif appears. Well, he could have the remaining 2, so rather than being checkraised, I just quickly turn over my hand and hold my breath. SB moans, and mucks QQ face up.

Anyone like anything about my play on any street?

LGPG,

Babe /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Vehn]

I have GOT to make another vegas trip.

[shemp]

Hi Pokerbabe. 5 limpers to me on the button and I limp with AKs -- I had to read that 3 or 4 times and I still think I've read it wrong. The guy has AA, KK, QQ, by your read, and you have an A and he puts you on trips, so bet the river. The river decision is a fraction of a bet compared to the preflop one.

[Diplomat]

I'm not sure if there exists a better time to raise pre-flop with AKs than on the button, after many limpers. I think just calling here is a bit weak-tight.

-Diplomat

[Clarkmeister]

"Anyone like anything about my play on any street"

More or less no. Preflop and the river are particularly bad IMO. So is the flop play given your read, though lord knows why you are so sure of AA-QQ in the SB.

[Clarkmeister]

"I'm not sure if there exists a better time to raise pre-flop with AKs than on the button, after many limpers. I think just calling here is a bit weak-tight."

Calling here is literally throwing money away. The only thing worse than not raising initially is not limp-reraising when given a chance to rectify the first mistake.

[astroglide]

worst. preflop. ever.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
worst. preflop. ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you. I don't want her to think I'm picking on her. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[RydenStoompala]

Perfect. Excellent decision on the flop. You probably could have won with a blank on the river.

[Depraved]

Well, I think you should have raised preflop, and if you ever missed an opportunity to limp-reraise it was here.

Since you titled your post "Useless Bluff?", I'm guessing you're particularly interested in what others think about the turn bet...

Different players have different thresholds for folding better hands if they feel beaten. For that reason, the turn bet was not completely useless IMO, even if it fails more often than not. You still have some pot-odds to try, and everyone says you have a very tight table-image, so using it deviously from time to time is intelligent.

[AJo Go All In]

[ QUOTE ]
I am on the button with A,K clubs. 5 limpers to me and I limp.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmm, someone might have said this already, but didn't sklansky call this exact play "a crime against humanity"?

[SpaceAce]

[ QUOTE ]
5 limpers to me on the button and I limp with AKs -- I had to read that 3 or 4 times and I still think I've read it wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haha, I read this and thought, "What's wrong with limping?" So, I reread it a few times and THEN noticed that it's AK. When I read "5 limpers... AKs" what I saw was "5 limpers... AXs". I just assumed that a limp there with a suited Ace was AX.

Definitely raise with AKs after those limpers. Of course, I've never even played as high as $20/$40 (you didn't say what limit but I assume it's highish given the forum) so maybe my advice sucks but this sure sounds like a place to raise.

SpaceAce

[elysium]

hi babe
whew....your games are usually good/ tight......hmmmmm. well, had you raised like you were suppose to, the SB would have reraised allowing you to 3-bet. if the betting is capped at 5, the SB's 4-bet (unlikely) could then have been called by you, and you would have a great opportunity to take down a nice pot.

but we don't get a chance to see you keep that blind lively by calling the 4-bet because you didn't raise or reraise. i would have liked it had you used the SB to drive the bets around.

when you hold a power-house like AKs, raise from the button into this field every time. you might be surprised by a SB reraise that you can call before the betting gets capped.

you have a bet on the river babe. if the SB turns over the rockets or cowboys, that's too bad. and the reason for betting isn't necessarily exclusively to get a single extra big bet in babe. when you check this thing down, well chit, you must open your hand for everyone to see. not much is said about it, but sometimes big pairs should be bet on the river just to get the opponent to fold so that the crowd doesn't see what your holding. the last thing you want to do is expose a group 1 holding. when you have a strong holding but do not bet, it will be very hard to.....oh what's the word babe? you've heard of sonar?; the 'beep' and then the resulting return echo. well, there is something called poker sonar. when you 'bet', your opponents give you a return echo before they act. not at first babe. at first, your bets won't have sonar. you must first condition your opponents and heighten their pre-action sensitivity level by showing them a direct cause and effect relationship between harsh reality and their call of your bet or raise, or your responce to their bet or raise. and the greater their expectation and the harsher the reality, the higher their sensitivity level rises, so that finally they complain and grimace at even casual conversation if that conversation is emanating from you. and babe it can be a happy voice. it doesn't have to be harsh in itself. your indigenous reflexive tonal quality used as a harsh reality delivery system every time you say 'bet' or 'raise', if your opponents sensitivity level to those words and your voice has been elevated high enough by the resulting harsh reality, i'm losing my train of thought, but soon you babe begin to receive the equivalent of a sonar return echo starting now to be flashed back at you by your opponents in the form of a grimace.

"bet!".....(grimace) (grimace) (grimace) "call.", they say back to you. that's one pair babe. you don't read opponents, you read opponent's grimaces after conditioning them over the course of the session. i really wish we could say "beep" instead of "bet". the grimace tells would be even better i bet.

"hi!".....(grimace) (grimace) (grimace) "oh no not him again", and you know you should have a pretty good day. but don't you see babe, when you check-down a strong hand, the next time you bet, even though your opponents should send a return pre-action echo back at you, because now you're betting, they say, "gee the babe's betting, hmmmmm" and muffle the echo. why? i don't know why babe. this conversation is way over my head. all i know is that if you don't bet, your opponents muffle the return echo below cognition. if you do bet, the next time you bet your opponents send a return pre-action echo.

i'm not an expert. i'm just finding this all out now. but the first thing i thought when i saw that you had checked down so strong a hand is, 'whew.....babe's opponents are going to muffle their echo.' oh.....and for some reason, don't ask me why, but also when you do not show what you were holding when your opponents fold to your heavy betting pressure, their return echo is crisper. awwww babe, i hate showing down group 1 holdings for this reason.

[Schneids]

[ QUOTE ]
and the reason for betting isn't necessarily exclusively to get a single extra big bet in babe. when you check this thing down, well chit, you must open your hand for everyone to see. not much is said about it, but sometimes big pairs should be bet on the river just to get the opponent to fold so that the crowd doesn't see what your holding. the last thing you want to do is expose a group 1 holding. when you have a strong holding but do not bet, it will be very hard to.....oh what's the word babe? you've heard of sonar?; the 'beep' and then the resulting return echo. well, there is something called poker sonar. when you 'bet', your opponents give you a return echo before they act. not at first babe. at first, your bets won't have sonar. you must first condition your opponents and heighten their pre-action sensitivity level by showing them a direct cause and effect relationship between harsh reality and their call of your bet or raise, or your responce to their bet or raise. and the greater their expectation and the harsher the reality, the higher their sensitivity level rises, so that finally they complain and grimace at even casual conversation if that conversation is emanating from you. and babe it can be a happy voice. it doesn't have to be harsh in itself. your indigenous reflexive tonal quality used as a harsh reality delivery system every time you say 'bet' or 'raise', if your opponents sensitivity level to those words and your voice has been elevated high enough by the resulting harsh reality, i'm losing my train of thought, but soon you babe begin to receive the equivalent of a sonar return echo starting now to be flashed back at you by your opponents in the form of a grimace.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you on and where can I get some? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[34TheTruth34]

Your play is fine.

preflop:

don't raise, the last thing you want to do is put more money in the pot without a pair. I wouldn't have called the raise when it came back to you, but if you want to see the flop with A /images/graemlins/club.gif K /images/graemlins/club.gif, I guess I understand that.


river:

don't bet, he either has AA or a jack. There's no way he could pay you off with any other hand.

Well played!

[PokerBabe(aka)]

Hi Handsome. Once again the Babe is dissed for her "girly" play here. /images/graemlins/blush.gif Sure, it's possible (probable) that I have the best hand now, and yes, I may lose the blinds if I raise. Both are textbook reasons to raise and generally a fine plan. /images/graemlins/smirk.gif But, my darling dear Best Boy, don't you ever, ever vary your play with A,K? When suited in a big field, I think it's ok to limp here sometimes. If I hit the flop, I have nicely disguised my hand and I have position. I will get action from any K or Ace limpers. If I miss the flop entirely, and there is any "significant" action before me, I just toss my hand in the muck.

As to why I put the SB on exactly 3 hands, it's simple. The guy plays much tighter than you. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

LGPG,
Babe /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[PokerBabe(aka)]

Please come soon and bring that A,K raise with you. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

LGPG,
Happy Holidays,

Babe /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Babe, I hate it when you didn't raise before the flop. AKs and you didn't raise all those limpers. Boo-hiss.

I don't mind the flop so much, but obviously you are out on a limb here.

The turn, yea, bet, you've already gone this far.

Quickly checking the river = good.

al

[PokerBabe(aka)]

Yes, I have to bet the turn here and give the guy one more chance to fold. The problem was that once he called the turn, he's almost certainly calling any bet on the river. The other big problem is that even if I hit an A or K on the river, I am not comfy betting it, since SB could very likely be holding pocket kings or aces. So, my bluff seemed pretty useless all along. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

LGPG,

Babe /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Ed Miller]

When suited in a big field, I think it's ok to limp here sometimes.

When offsuit in a big field, I think it's ok to limp here sometimes. Suited limping is a crime against humanity.

[PokerBabe(aka)]

I think you are correct that the greater of the 2 crimes is limping when suited. If I hit those clubs, I have the mother of all pots being pushed my way and I can then buy you lunch. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

LGPG,

See you Tues.

Babe /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[SoBeDude]

If I miss the flop entirely, and there is any "significant" action before me, I just toss my hand in the muck.

um...

um...

no comment.

-Scott

[SoBeDude]

Calling here is literally throwing money away. The only thing worse than not raising initially is not limp-reraising when given a chance to rectify the first mistake.

Excellent point

-S

[PokerBabe(aka)]

Sorry Sobe,...I should have said...."Except of course when I am on a stone cold bluff with only one guy trying to steal in front of me....."

And...No, I don't take cards off with this hand when I miss if there is a bet and raise in front of me, although I realize some people do.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing worse than not raising initially is not limp-reraising when given a chance to rectify the first mistake.


[/ QUOTE ]

Hahahaha, Just kidding! I fully agree!

al

[daryn]

oh baby.. this post hits the mark i think. you missed the chance to raise when you limped (gross) but then whoa, sb raises,.. how perfect! now you can limp reraise! alas, you just called /images/graemlins/frown.gif..

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am on the button with A,K clubs. 5 limpers to me and I limp.

[/ QUOTE ]

hmm, someone might have said this already, but didn't sklansky call this exact play "a crime against humanity"?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, he called it a "crime against humanity" when not raising from the BIG BLIND. Not raising 5 limpers on the button must be a "crime against the universe".

In his old "Rate these holdem errors" thread, he said that not raising ATs against 4 limpers costs about 1/3BB in expectation. Considering how much stronger AKs is and the extra limper, its basically a full 1BB mistake preflop, something that is almost impossible to do.

[bunky9590]

Just my opinon. I'm raising preflop.

Flop I can't believe SB checked!!!! Nice move on the flop, BTW.

Turn this is an auto bet, represent that Jack and make him fold. Once you are called, problem city.

River. Checking and betting is close for me but you definitely have more experience than me so I'm going to listen and check that situation from now on. Nicely done.

[shemp]

There you go again. Let's just look at the river and stipulate your read of AA, KK, QQ (absurd, but fine). There's one way to have KK, six to have QQ, and three to have AA -- and he has you on trips, (and, besides the point but I'll add it: if puppy has KK he probably bets out the river).

So you bet. Sometimes you bet and he shows you AA -- and you say, "My bust y'all."

[David Steele]

Even if you were to justify somehow in your own mind the crime against the galaxy, you have no excuse for the crime against the universe of not re-raising.

D.

[Tommy Angelo]

"didn't sklansky call this exact play "a crime against humanity"? "

No. David was talking about not raising with AKs from the big blind after two players limp and the small blind folds.


Tommy the criminal

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
River. Checking and betting is close for me but you definitely have more experience than me so I'm going to listen and check that situation from now on. Nicely done.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the danger of these forums. Don't ever change your play based on what one person does on one specific hand. There is no reason to check the river.

[bunky9590]

thanks, I needed that. I figured no way does the Sb put you on AK with the preflop limp


I figured maybe I missed something sice i don't play for a living and tend to be a little overagressive in those situations. Thanks for slapping some sense into me.

[glen]

"Not raising 5 limpers on the button must be a "crime against the universe"."

while I agree Babe made one of the biggets poker mistakes, I think for sake of general standards you need to save "crime against the universe" for something like Andy Roddick's appearance on SNL. . .

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
Your play is fine.

preflop:

don't raise, the last thing you want to do is put more money in the pot without a pair. I wouldn't have called the raise when it came back to you, but if you want to see the flop with A /images/graemlins/club.gif K /images/graemlins/club.gif, I guess I understand that.


river:

don't bet, he either has AA or a jack. There's no way he could pay you off with any other hand.

Well played!

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume this is a joke?

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
As to why I put the SB on exactly 3 hands, it's simple. The guy plays much tighter than you. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]


If the only hands he raises from the blinds with 6 limpers are AA, KK and QQ, he may be tighter than me, but he isn't very good.

[Martin Aigner]

Hi all,

first of all: I sure wouldn´t have been in the situation since I would have raised with AKs in this situation. Anyway, I´m not sure about the possible limp reraise. Against these many players the high card value of AK goes down a lot. Furthermore: When there are that many bets in the pot already, the other players get excellent odds for chasing any pair on flop and turn, even if I hit an A or K.

Actually, I think I might rather limp-reraise in this situation with something like JTs rather than AKs.

What am I missing here?

About the flopplay: I would have called and raised the turn if I had a J in this situation, therefor I´d play the AKs the same way, if I thought I had the flopbettor beat.


Flame away.

Best regards

Martin Aigner

[shemp]

AKs is a monster here. 7-8 way the only company it hates is AA. It merely dislikes KK but is still happy to share. It loves sharing preflop equity with QQ. Limp reraising JTs is foolish against overpairs and AK, even w/ a more than fair-share preflop edge against the field. People who don't get this aren't tight or minimizing their variance -- they are bleeding chips.

Your pot manipulation idea is wrong-headed. Routinely, the only place you will show a clear profit is preflop -- and it will offset the subsequent error you might make when someone hits a 2-5 outer on a K or A high board -- a circumstance which should only reenforce your preflop decision, not second guess it. You need to find the mindset where you feel the same joy when the flop comes 859 2-hearts and you face 2-3 bets on the flop as when it comes A22 and seven people check to you and then call in succession with their 2 outers and backdoor draws -- not, a see, JTs, plays better 8 way...

[PokerBabe(aka)]

"stipulate your read of AA, KK, QQ (absurd, but fine)".

It's "absurd" to think that a TIGHT SB raiser who already notes 6 way action has something other than these pocket pairs? Oh, right, he might have 7, 2 offsuit or perhaps A,J. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif What games are you playing in? /images/graemlins/ooo.gif LGPG, Babe /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Martin Aigner]

Shemp,

I agree that the limpreraise with JTs against an overpair is poor. But when there is a possibility that SB raises with a medium pair I´m not quite so sure, esp. since you most probably don´t have an overpair to your right.

From twodimes:

Flop: As 9d 5c

Ah Kh: 27.63% win
Js 9s: 18.92
6d 7h: 23.57
2s 2d: 7.66
Qs Qc: 9.46
5s 4c: 12.76

I´d sure love to have AKs in this situation, but I´m not sure whether I wouldn´t love to have AKs in this situation of the pot was smaller.

Best regards

Martin Aigner

[shemp]

You describe the tourist as tightish, not tight. I tend to see 17% of flops in 10 handed game, what am I? I raise w/ much more than AA-QQ here.

But I'll trust your read 100%. By it you get called by a worse hand 60%, a better hand 30%, and 10% something else happens. Is the bet on the river close? What part of your play are you defending, and then perhaps I can criticize it (constructively)? I'm already certain that you play much better than me, so don't consider this an indictment of your play overall...

[PokerBabe(aka)]

Post deleted by PokerBabe(aka)

[Clarkmeister]

Babe,

It is YOU who gives the range of hands. With that range of hands checking the river is absolutely positively 100% mathematically WRONG as was demonstrated above where the combinations were layed out.

It is not even debatable, assuming your range of hands is correct and you don't pay off a checkraise (which given your read would be an obviously bad play).

[PokerBabe(aka)]

Hi shemp. One of the reasons I posted this hand was that my play is questionable on every street. Once the guy CHECK calls (2 bets) on the flop, I am certain my read is correct. After he calls my turn bet, I am almost certain there is no card I like on the river. I am checking any Q, K or A there for obvious reasons. If a rag comes, I would probably bet it as a "desperation" attempt to finally convince the guy I had flopped trip Jacks. Although most people responding to this thread would not lay down an overpair there, my opponnent may have.

Your point that he is more likely to have QQ here than AA or KK is 100% correct, and as I think about it more, the river bet makes sense. Also, since this guy is CHECKING all the way, he would have probably bet out with KK on the river.

Thanks for the commments,

Happy Holidays

Babe /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[PokerBabe(aka)]

SORRY - I was editing my last post and sent it to the galaxy RiverCheck by mistake.

see my response to shemp.

Happy Holidays,

Babe /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[PokerBabe(aka)]

Captain, I think the Babe just bet the river. Please beam her up quickly, Scotty.

LGPG,

GalaxyBabe /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Depraved]

That's a good mathematical analysis of value betting the river which I didn't even consider when I first read the post.

However, I feel you've overlooked the fact that QQ may not call the river bet once the King hits. If this is true, then the value on this bet deteriorates considerably.

[Clarkmeister]

Yay! I knew you would see the "light" eventually.

Keep LG,

Clark

[PokerBabe(aka)]

[shemp]

You still don't get it. If QQ folds the river 1/3 of the time (and I feel like I'm stipulating another absurdity), then 60% *of the times you are called* you are called by an inferior hand. 40% *of the times you are called* you are called by AA.

[34TheTruth34]

[ QUOTE ]
I assume this is a joke?

[/ QUOTE ]

You know what they say when you assume...

[Depraved]

No, I think you missed the point. If he has either QQ, KK, or AA, there is a 60% he has QQ.

However, if for example, he always folds QQ on the river, there is a 0% chance of being called by an inferior hand. Your 60% figure if QQ folds 1/3 of the time is wrong.

You bet to get worse hands to call, or get better hands to fold. Assuming he will not fold KK or AA, we now bet hoping worse hands will call. If QQ won't call, there's no point in betting.

Whether or not QQ will fold is another point open to speculation.

[shemp]

You've moved the goalposts here from suggesting to stipulate "QQ may fold" to "QQ will fold 100%". Further, this latter is now subject to speculation, but in your original formulation you contemplated the case such that the river bet lost value, not degenerated into a nullity.

Thanks for pointing out that my sloppy claim that if QQ folds 1/3, you win 60% of the time you are called, the exact number is 4/7 ~ 57% -- corrected: if QQ folds nearly 1/3, you win 60% of the time you are called. You are welcome to consider it either an omitted word or evidence of my innumeracy.

[Depraved]

I don't think we have to move the goal posts that far to warrant a river check. In fact, it appears you barely break even if QQ folds just 1/3 of the time with the assumptions we've stipulated.

I'm not a math specialist, but I don't know where you got 4/7 (57%) from.

Please tell me why this math/logic is wrong... If you deal the hand out 10 times, the SB would get QQ 6 times, KK 1 time, and AA 3 times. If he only calls with QQ 4 of those times (since we're speculating he folds 1/3 of the time), PokerBabe gets called and wins 4 out of the 10 times she bets. She loses 4 out of the 10 times she bets. 2 out of the 10 times she neither wins nor loses on the river bet. Of course, that produces a 50/50 win/loss ratio. If QQ folds more than 1/3, she should start to lose money on the river bet.

Disagree? What am I missing?

[Clarkmeister]

What you are missing is that our opponent with the presumed AA-QQ coldcalled two on the flop and called the turn. The pot is huge and our opponent has no one else to worry about.

It should be rather obvious that we don't have a jack, so our opponnet likely puts us on a pocket pair. Why on earth would the king scare our opponent? It looks like the most innocuous card on earth.

QQ folds 0% of the time here. Sure, we can say that if no worse hands will ever call us, betting is wrong, but why argue about fantasyland? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Depraved]

[ QUOTE ]
What you are missing is that our opponent with the presumed AA-QQ coldcalled two on the flop and called the turn. The pot is huge and our opponent has no one else to worry about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not missing that, and I don't think QQ should usually fold. 12.5 big bets is a lot, but many wouldn't consider it huge. On the turn, the SB appeared headed for a showdown, but that was the turn.

[ QUOTE ]
It should be rather obvious that we don't have a jack, so our opponnet likely puts us on a pocket pair. Why on earth would the king scare our opponent? It looks like the most innocuous card on earth.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not true. PokerBabe can easily have a Jack. The King may be innocuous, but a bet by PokerBabe after the King falls represents real strength that can beat QQ. People make lay-downs all the time based on this sort of thing, right or wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
QQ folds 0% of the time here. Sure, we can say that if no worse hands will ever call us, betting is wrong, but why argue about fantasyland?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's also not true. Just because a good or tough player will fold here 0% of the time, doesn't mean the SB will too - I have no reason to believe he's a great player, if nothing else just from the way he played his hand. It's just a matter of gauging how often your opponent might do it. Why would you doubt this player is capable of folding second pair on the river? He played the hand like he was extremely tight/passive even when it's clear that QQ is vulnerable 7-way. It's players like these that are capable of making this river laydown.

To be clear, I'm not sure the river bet isn't profitable and that QQ won't call most of the time, but I'm not entirely convinced, so that's why I'm interested in what others think... it's clear what you believe, however.

[shemp]

4 out of ten she gets called by QQ.
3 out of ten she gets called by AA.
so, of the 7 times she is called, 4 of those are by QQ.

Why I think I'm dealing with a moving target: do you want to argue that she shouldn't bet the river based on her read, or do you want to argue that a hypothetical player can be imagined where a river bet doesn't show a profit.

You seem to be vascillating between these two positions as convenient to whatever it is you want to say. I'm not interested in the latter case. In the former, I say, even stipulating dubious assumptions, the bet still shows a clear profit. Is it possible to come up with an even more tenuous set of assumptions? Of course.

What do you actually think and why/what are you assuming?

[shemp]

I agree w/ everything but one: cupcake fears trips. Even if that is results oriented, it still holds. He was 7-8way, mustered his last bit of courage to raise preflop from the SB, saw the board paired high and hoped he could check/raise the button or that everyone folded to the BB's bet or that it came back to him for 3bets and he could fold, and now he is hanging on for a showdown, praying a Q hits. I'm afraid I can empathize. All the more reason to bet the river and break his heart (60% of it, anyway).

[Depraved]

No, there's no moving target, no hypotheticals. You broke it down based on the idea that SB never has KK. This isn't true. SB has KK 1 time, remember? When deciding if you should bet the river for value, you can't disregard KK just because there will be a checkraise...

[ QUOTE ]
4 out of ten she gets called by QQ.
3 out of ten she gets called by AA.

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot:
1 out of 10 times she gets called by KK

Which changes this:
[ QUOTE ]
so, of the 7 times she is called, 4 of those are by QQ.

[/ QUOTE ]

to this:
so, of the 8 times she is called, 4 of those are by QQ

We know KK will checkraise, but this is irrevelant. The river bet is called by a loser 4/10 of the time. The river bet is lost 4/10 of the time. 50/50.

And if you called the river checkraise, the odds are now also not in your favor since you lose more money when you bet the river.

[shemp]

How could I forget that KK calls her when KK doesn't call her?

How do we know that KK checkraises, when she believes it likely KK bets out?

If we allow that QQ folds nearly 1/3 of the time the bet shows a profit. And further of the 7 times she is called, 4 of those she has the winner. As I said in my initial post, while checking is wrong, it is chicken scratch compared to the preflop error.

Stop trying to win a debate and state what you actually think and why. I've laid out what I think under the information given and backed it up. Rather than do the same, you search for a missing gap and provide a moving target.

[PokerBabe(aka)]

You wrote: " It should be rather obvious that we don't have a jack, so our opponnet likely puts us on a pocket pair. Why on earth would the king scare our opponent? It looks like the most innocuous card on earth." /images/graemlins/diamond.gif

Clark, Do you really think this guy checks the turn because he put me on a pocket pair and then checks the K on the river because it's such an innocuous card vs. his QQ? /images/graemlins/crazy.gif Just when I thought we actually agreed on something, you come up with this bizarre statement. /images/graemlins/confused.gif If our Q holder put me on a pocket pair then he should 3 bet the flop and/or check raise the turn for crying out loud. He is no Clark but he knows he has a pretty big hand vs. a girl, right? Come on. That guy was check/calling the Babe. He MAY have thought I did in fact have that monster under the bed, but decided to keep check/calling like a sheep with hopes for a miracle.


Babe /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Clarkmeister]

Babe,

Your opponent played his hand horribly. I don't pretend to know what he was thinking, only what he *should* have been thinking. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[andyfox]

So I haven't been here for a couple of days and I see this post with sixty-one responses. Sixty-one. A famous number associated with another famous Babe.

That Babe, like you, hit a lot of home runs. But he struck out a lot too.

A-Ks with 7 people with money in the pot in front of you and you overlimp. Strike one. Now you get another chance when there's a blind raise and you reoverlimp. Strike two.

If your opponent must have either Aces, Kings or Queens your play on the flop is Strike three.

Fortunately, your opponent played it worse. Is this the way a Vegas regular plays pocket queens?

Anyway, we still love you. And we've all played hands worse, we just don't have the guts to post 'em. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[PokerBabe(aka)]

....And as we all know "guts" is what it takes to play this game. LGPG, and Happy Holidays.

Bambina /images/graemlins/heart.gif

[Zeno]

Pokerbabe,

Do you have "AK syndrome"? I remember another hand more than a few moons ago with an AK that was also "questionable" as to your play.

I cannot believe you play this way all the time or this badly. You can however, play anyway you please as it is your money and cards.

Do you in general have a problem playing AKs or AKo? Is this a leak in your game? Could that be the real reason you posted the hand? Just some random rhetorical questions for you that's all. Keep looking good and Please start playing better. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

-Zeno

[Phat Mack]

First of all, let me say that I like your play on all streets. There's no reason to raise before the flop. With two blinds and five callers, what will a raise do--narrow the field so that you can get heads up with a KQ?

The other big problem is that even if I hit an A or K on the river, I am not comfy betting it, since SB could very likely be holding pocket kings or aces. So, my bluff seemed pretty useless all along.

Yeah, but the question is, what do you do if you miss the river. There's no point betting once you have a hand you can show down. If you miss and bet, and QQ folds, then it was a good bluff. If he doesn't fold, it was a bad one. I wasn't there, so you'll have to tell me: would he have folded to a bet on the river?