can AA win this hand?

Greetings all,

This is a first time post from a frequent lurker, so I will try to include all the important information. This is a hand I witnessed in a 15-30 game with a kill. This pot is killed by a middle position player (MP) with a stack of 160. He is a true maniac. He raises most hands and plays all at least to the turn. UTG is a tight very agressive young pro with a good size stack. Cut off (CO) is a solid but boring player with same type of stack.

UTG raises holding AsAc. Folded to MP who calls with ??, then folded to cut off who reraises with JdJh. UTG calls and MP caps it for four bets saying "might as well go all in" call, call and they take the flop 3 handed. Flop comes Qc9h8s. UTG checks MP bets 30 (kill pot to limits of 30-60) CO calls UTG calls. Turn card Qh for a board of Qc9h8sQh. UTG checks MP goes all in for 10 CO calls UTG completes the bet to 60 (is a check raise usually allowed on an all in underbet? just curious) CO calls. River is 10s UTG bets CO calls. CO scoops the pot.

My question is: can UTG win this pot. With the betting the way it was obviously not, but is there any sequence of bets where CO will fold?


Thank you in advance,

Simon Ford

"UTG checks MP goes all in for 10 CO calls UTG completes the bet to 60 (is a check raise usually allowed on an all in underbet? just curious) CO calls."


A check raise should not be allowed here since 10 is less than half-a-bet. Thus it should be counted as if there is no bet at all which in essense makes the UTG player check raising himself.


As for your question the only way the UTG player could have won the pot was to lead on the flop, have MP raise, and then the player with the two jacks might fold. But given the way you have described the MP this fold would not be certain.

Since $10 is not considered a bet, UTG who has already checked "should" not be allowed to "complete" it, since this would mean he has "checked-bet" which is contrary to traditional betting sequences, where betting is reopened for one round only when someone initiates more action. However, most casinos let players do this, go figure.


Malmuth is correct; CO should have bet into MP, knowing he'd raise, to knock out button who obviously is likely to have some sort of draw. However, since MP has only an extra $10, this may not work.


So the board is QQT98 against a pre-flop solid 3-better who likes his hand enough to call a raise on the turn and get to the river. The only reasonable hand AA can beat is KK, who may very well NOT call since HE is obviously beaton by the UTG 2-better who likes HIS hand enough to check-raise the turn. AA is unlikely the best hand, unlikely to get called by a lesser hand, and cannot bluff. Only an IDIOT would bet AA in this spot.


When I read your first paragraph I came to two quick suspicions: [1] My money is on the "solid but boring" player over the "aggressive young pro" in the long run, and [2] You seem to confuse "flashy" with "good", as does the "aggressive young pro". The rest of your post seems to confirm these suspicions.


- Louie

Thank you for the response Louie,

In terms of position and players in the hand please review the original post. The flop was seen by UTG ( the player I called the "young agressive pro") an the MP ( the maniac ) and the CO (the boring solid player). which means the button did not play. I agree with your statement that UTG cannot beat a hand that calls the river. The question I am asking is can the UTG win this pot ever? I talked at length with this player about the hand and we both agreed that he played it poorly. I am wondering: Can he ever win this hand with different betting?

Thank you,

Simon Ford