Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke
 

I think this is one of these hands where it doesn't matter how either player plays as long they don't fold.

Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke
 

"I don't think that his hand was strong enough to wait until the turn to put in a raise."

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Assuming he has the best hand and that the XX are truly blanks, how many outs can Roy have here? In other words, how close to drawing dead must an opponent be before waiting until the turn IS correct? (just playing the devil's advocate). Thanks.

Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke
 

Chicago played the hand very badly. He should have either checkraised the flop and bet the turn or bet the flop and the turn. Roy played his hand perfectly. What is he supposed to do? His opponent is playing so weak you can't blame him for thinking he has the best hand.He probably thought he was up against QQ or JJ.

Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke
 

I agree that check raising the turn with AQ here would be too aggressive. Looking at Roy's possible holdings, AA, AK, KK are the most likely, and I do not think check raising on the turn makes sense for any of them.

Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke
 

A checkraise on the flop is a good option for the AQ here results aside. I'm not sure why he chose to be so passive about this. The way things went I think Roy should of checked behind on the turn.

PokerPrince

Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke
 

I have played with Roy quite a bit at Bellagio and for many years before the Bellagio at the Mirage. I think it's erroneous to call him "squeaky tight". One of the things I've watched him do and something he writes about is adjust his play to the game and players at hand. Recently we were together in a ridiculously tight 30-60 game. Roy raised UTG and I was in mid-late position with KK and 3 bet. To make a long story short he hit his set, played it fast until the river when the board paired and then checked to me. I checked. Roy later said to me "I can't believe you didn't bet those Kings on the river." I responded that I never value bet when I'm confused as to where I'm at and his play had confused me - I think we both learned something from that encounter.

However, the point is, in a very tight game you will see sophisticated players like RC come in for a raise UTG with a hand like 55 where he would never do so in a different type of game.

My suspicion is your friend was in a relatively loose game where someone like Roy is only going to bet when he has a hand because he knows he's going to be called. Can this possibly be a product of your friend's play?

Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke
 

Thanks for your response Softrock. I always like to hear about encounters between top players.

"My suspicion is your friend was in a relatively loose game where someone like Roy is only going to bet when he has a hand because he knows he's going to be called. Can this possibly be a product of your friend's play? "

From my understanding this was the first 15 minutes they had played together. IMO- I wouldn't call the guy from Chicago a loose goose, but who knows? Maybe Roy picked something up about his play.. Thanks again.

Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke
 

Are you saying that if the guy from Chicago DID check/raise the turn, that Roy should pay off an unkown player 100% of the time? Just curious. Thanks.

Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke
 

Hi Kevin:

The first question is, did the Chicago local make a bad check on the turn? I didn't necessarily think so. I believe he should've made whichever play gets Roy to put another bet in. If checking accomplishes this, then fine.

Your friend is either badly beat or he has Cooke badly beat. In either case he probably wants to check.

The next question is, did Roy make a bad bet on the turn? Roy is either safely ahead or drawing very thin with KK, so is there any compelling reason for him to bet? Then again, the Chicago local was unkown to him. Roy could've been thinking, "I'm gonna call the river if I check, so why not bet? If he's got QQ or a worse hand, I'll charge him to draw". What does everyone else think?

There's good reason to check here. If Cooke has JJ, then a bet makes much more sense. Do you see the difference?

The third question is, what should the Chicago local have done after Roy bet the turn? A top Chicago pro, thought check/raising the flop was in order. Failing that, check/raising the turn was a MUST in his opinion. His reasoning was that the Chicago local should've been content to take the pot at any point. How can Roy make a bad bet on the turn, when he never gets properly punished for it?

There's nothing wrong with the check, call. Cooke could easily have ace-king, and two aces is a possibility.

So another question is, should the Chicago local be looking to take this pot down right away? Or should he try and get Roy to put in as much "bad" money as possible? Don't forget, there's still a small chance the Chicago local is beat, although this is probably not something to be overly afraid of. I suppose there's a point in every hand, where you need to balance the importance between winning the pot and gaining value for your hand. Was that balance tipped here against a two-out hand?

The chance of the Chicago player having the best hand are probably smaller than you think. There's 1 way he can be against AA and 8 ways he can be against AK. There are also 6 ways each he can be against KK, QQ, and JJ. So he is only a 2-to-1 favorite. Plus he is out of position. So playing the hand defensively seems fine to me.

Best wishes,
mason

Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke
 

Everyone who wants to check-raise this flop or turn out of position when heads-up against a solid pre-flop 3-bettor is asking to get punished by better hands and letting worse hands fold cheaply.

Check-calling this hand down should be your standard play. Maybe you can value bet the river. Why the hell would you want an underpair to fold while drawing to a ~22:1 shot?

As for Roy's turn bet, it's nearly automatic. I'd bet KK there everytime and expect to be ahead almost every time.