Re: 3-betting AQ PF
 

I would call him down. He could have had QK preflop and you may have him dominated at this point. He could have 2 spades but you hope he doesnt. I dont think he has a 2.

Re: 3-betting AQ PF
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree that we have four outs and I don't agree that we have to call down a turn three bet.

I think we have only two outs (the queens) usually when behind.

In fact, it is EXACTLY because we have so few outs that we raise the turn. This is a classic example of where it is correct to play the turn aggressively with few outs.

If we had a decent club (like the K, though not necessarily the A) I think a much, much better argument could be made for calling down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure this makes sense. If a deuce is no good here, CO has to have either AA, KK, or a deuce, right? Is CO raising any hand with 2 preflop? Does CO not raise or bet out on the flop with AA or KK?

Re: 3-betting AQ PF
 

Good point. The deueces are probably outs as well.

4 outs is not that much. Basically, 4 outs is not enough to merit continuing to draw anyway. That way, I'm not worried about getting raised off it.

The time to not raise with draws are in situations wear your draws are strong enough to merit continuing to the river on their own. Those are the situations where you absolutely must see the river, and so you don't want to be forced to pay too heavily for that obligation.

Here, the strength of our hand comes from it's immediate showdown value, not from the draws. We're not improving often enough to play this as a "drawing hand." So I like a raise.

That we have 4 outs instead of 2 is pretty immaterial.

Re: 3-betting AQ PF
 

Not true. After the 3-bet, we're getting 11:1 to call, on a 4-outer (make it 3.5 if you like, plus a river bet we'll usually get). With 2 outs, we have an easy fold to a turn 3-bet, not so with 4 outs. I'm not saying raising is wrong, but folding to a 3-bet seems like a bad idea, especially since his most likely hand at that point will be a flush, which does give us 4 clean outs (although if he does have a flush, we are getting at most 1 bet on the river unless he's retarded, so the call, while plus EV, is thin).

Re: 3-betting AQ PF
 

All right, all right... it's closer than I originally thought. (Note to self... actually look at the numbers first...)

But anyway, getting three-bet would suck, but I don't worry too much about this here. Villain's play is not what many would do with a flush. A blank 2 is not all that likely to reraise you here because the flush draw came. And so forth. So I don't think that the concern about getting three-bet and maybe having to make a very thin call is enough of a reason to not raise the turn. The factors, enumerated in a previous post, far outweigh that.

But thanks for bringing up an important point.

Re: 3-betting AQ PF
 

I'm raising the turn as well, because I think you're ahead a huge percentage of the time. But the 4 outs versus 2 is relevant, because if you are 3-bet, you've put yourself in a horrible spot if you only have 2 outs. You'll be getting 10.25 to 1 when you need 21 to 1 to call down your hand that does have showdown value. With 4 outs, you'll need only 10 to 1 to call. So if you are 3 bet, you might've raised yourself into a fold when you'd like to see a showdown at the very least.

Re: 3-betting AQ PF
 

Given CO's tight preflop play I'd assume he has you beat most of the time. However, how about his post flop stats? I might put him on something like AJ of clubs, or something in that neighborhood. He didn't cap preflop or lead the flop so I don't think AA or KK is what you're worried about. I'd probably raise and fold to a 3-bet on the turn. However, the pot is probably too big to fold, and for the same two big bets you can see a showdown. So there you go, how about calling down?

Re: 3-betting AQ PF
 

He makes and bets for value his flush on the turn because he doesn't want you to check. You could check if the flop bet was a position/PFR lead bet.