Re: Should this have been protected on the flop?
 

I don't think we need to worry about protecting a hand this strong, especially in a small pot. We are only going to lose to a bigger pocket pair sucking out on us, who are incorrectly even calling one bet on the flop, or to an ace that hits its kicker, who again has only 3 outs and is calling one bet incorrectly. So we need to think about value. I think that with the bettor to our right I probably just call the flop, try to build a big pot, and get paid off on the big streets. As every one else has said you should always sit with enough $$$ so you never go all in.

Re: Should this have been protected on the flop?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A set on the flop (even bottom set) is monsterish - it is good multi-way, there is no need to knock out opponents. Obivously the AA on the board devalues the set a little.


[/ QUOTE ]

Those two aces turn our set into a full house, making our hand fairly close to invincible (Barring the 4-outer that a lone ace can hit).

IMO the biggest mistake that the OP made was not having enough on the table to extract the maximum value.

[/ QUOTE ]


OMFG. This has got to be a joke.
FYP Redd.
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...part=1&vc=1

To the OP:
This is a hand that should not be slowplayed. There are no str8 draws on this board. You are only going to get play from flush draws, Aces and pocket pairs. ie. There is nothing that anyone can pick up on the turn worth fighting for, that they don't already have now.

Aces will go to war, flush draws will stay because of the improbability of A5 and PP (drawing to 3-5outs)you want money from but you're not going to be unhappy if they fold (due to negative implied odds - they only go to war when they have you beat).

Housecalls makes the good point of preferring KK5. This hand looks very strong but could be outdrawn by 10+% of the pack (the more people in, the higher this could be). A lot of people will play Arag.

IMO. Put a large weight on the raise button and hope noone pairs their kicker (be careful if a broadway hits) and hope the flush card hits.

Re: Should this have been protected on the flop?
 

Its interesting that there is disagreement in whether this should go to war on the flop or be slowplayed.

A lone Ace isn't going to fold. It also has a decent amount of outs. The last 5 can cause a split, the last Ace gives quads, 3 outs for the lone aces' kicker and 3 outs for pairing the turn card (as long as they are both above 5).

With these taken into consideration, I'm thinking it might be better to go to war on the flop, when i'm positive I have the best hand. You know...take the money now while I have the chance.

Thoughts?

Re: Should this have been protected on the flop?
 

2 things most people have failed to acknowledge.

1. An ace may only have 4 outs, but he has 2 chances to make those outs. The turn and the river. He is ~5:1 to win this pot on the flop.

2. His chances don't diminish on the turn. Any turn card gives the Ace another 3 outs with runner-runner boat. He is now 5.6:1 to win the pot.

EDIT: It doesn't matter what the turn card is (a 2,3,4 pairing still gives villian a bigger boat).

Re: Should this have been protected on the flop?
 

[ QUOTE ]

The last 5 can cause a split


[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: Should this have been protected on the flop?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The last 5 can cause a split


[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

lol. whoops, nevermind

i have this awesome habit of overlooking things first and then posting.

Re: Should this have been protected on the flop?
 

[ QUOTE ]
2 things most people have failed to acknowledge.

1. An ace may only have 4 outs, but he has 2 chances to make those outs. The turn and the river. He is ~5:1 to win this pot on the flop.

2. His chances don't diminish on the turn. Any turn card gives the Ace another 3 outs with runner-runner boat. He is now 5.6:1 to win the pot.

EDIT: It doesn't matter what the turn card is (a 2,3,4 pairing still gives villian a bigger boat).

[/ QUOTE ]


At first this made me want to say i should wait for the turn in order to raise a safe card. However, i can't be sure that ANY turn card is a safe card. Villain could have any kicker to go with his ace.

Kwazzie has persuaded me to be in favor of going to war with this on the flop.

Re: Should this have been protected on the flop?
 

SB is slowplaying an ace for sure. You should have at least 12BB before every hand starts. You could then go ahead and cap the river.

[ QUOTE ]
Your only concern is how to get as much money as possible in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. You will very rarely lose this hand with your flopped boat so get as much money in. You don't want people to fold so I wouldn't raise the flop.

Re: Should this have been protected on the flop?
 

I don't mind the slowplay here on the flop, but I think I'm raising the turn when it's just the three of you. I do think some hands that will call for one will not for two on the flop, some will think the lone better is FOS concerning the ace.

Re: Should this have been protected on the flop?
 

i think the slowplay is bad, flush draw will call anyway, an ace may give you lots of action, your oppenents are bad, devaluing deceptive play.

I suggest a book: Weighing the Odds in Hold'em Poker by King Yao(a 2+2er)

Edit: And another book, Ace on the River by Barry Greenstein

supposedly buying in short in limit games is advantageous, according to his book