Re: 25NL AA SB, overplayed again?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He mucked his AQo...

[/ QUOTE ]

This is one of the hands that, I think, may have bet the river if you checked. Just watching out for your bottom line.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see your point, but I'm not sure I agree. I bet the river on the notion that if I checked he might just check behind, and I'd lose out on a value bet.

I did still think I was ahead on the river, or I definitely would have check/called. I was just a lot more worried about it by then. I guess it depends on read, and my hand reading skills still suck.

Re: 25NL AA SB, overplayed again?
 

I think betting the river seems right. If you check, you have an autocall if/when he bets. By betting you may get some value from a hand that would check behind had you checked (AQ or KQ for example). If he has you beat he's getting your money anyway.

Re: 25NL AA SB, overplayed again?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I check here, he's going to represent the flush whether he's got it or not....

[/ QUOTE ]

So why not checkraise all in?

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks. I had to think about this for quite a while, but it really seems good. Check my thinking?

1. If I'd had the presence of mind to see we were headed all in anyway, the c/r all-in won't lose you any more, because I lose my stack to a turned flush anyway.

2. I'm OOP, so I do want the money in sooner rather than later. But a turn push may let a worse hand get away. So the checkraise gives him better pot odds to call than if I had lead-pushed.

3. If he checks through, well, that's pot control for my overpair. The only thing is, if he's on a lone high [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img], he can check through and draw for free. But since I said I think he'll bet it whether he's got it or not, then that should be less of a consideration.

4. It would definitely make him think twice about aggression in future hands.

Re: 25NL AA SB, overplayed again?
 

yep, that's a good analysis

Re: 25NL AA SB, overplayed again?
 

Wow, I'm lost here. I can't see how giving a free card on a board like that can be a good thing. You CAN'T know for sure that he will bet. As a matter of fact, your average decent player would gladly take his free card for a chance to beat you.

If this were the river I think checking to induce a bluff would be ok, but not here.

Re: 25NL AA SB, overplayed again?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think betting the river seems right. If you check, you have an autocall if/when he bets. By betting you may get some value from a hand that would check behind had you checked (AQ or KQ for example). If he has you beat he's getting your money anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes no sense. If Hero is behind, he'll lose the river bet whether he lead bets or check/calls. If Hero is ahead, however, he loses nothing by check/calling and gains any possible bluff from Villain. If Hero is ahead and lead bets on the river, Villain will fold some of the hands that would have bet if Hero had checked. Do you see how the river check/call earns us more money against Villain's handrange than the lead bet?

Re: 25NL AA SB, overplayed again?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think betting the river seems right. If you check, you have an autocall if/when he bets. By betting you may get some value from a hand that would check behind had you checked (AQ or KQ for example). If he has you beat he's getting your money anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes no sense. If Hero is behind, he'll lose the river bet whether he lead bets or check/calls. If Hero is ahead, however, he loses nothing by check/calling and gains any possible bluff from Villain. If Hero is ahead and lead bets on the river, Villain will fold some of the hands that would have bet if Hero had checked. Do you see how the river check/call earns us more money against Villain's handrange than the lead bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your analysis; however, with villain on a short stack, you are giving odds for anything but air to call in this instance. Please let me know if I am missing something here.

Re: 25NL AA SB, overplayed again?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think betting the river seems right. If you check, you have an autocall if/when he bets. By betting you may get some value from a hand that would check behind had you checked (AQ or KQ for example). If he has you beat he's getting your money anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes no sense. If Hero is behind, he'll lose the river bet whether he lead bets or check/calls. If Hero is ahead, however, he loses nothing by check/calling and gains any possible bluff from Villain. If Hero is ahead and lead bets on the river, Villain will fold some of the hands that would have bet if Hero had checked. Do you see how the river check/call earns us more money against Villain's handrange than the lead bet?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your analysis; however, with villain on a short stack, you are giving odds for anything but air to call in this instance. Please let me know if I am missing something here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just think by checking the river, you lose nothing. If villain doesn't have enough to take a stab in this situation, then he certainly won't pay you off if you bet. My thought is that the river check perfectly represents either A[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]Kx or AxK[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]. Villain will probably take the initiative on a check, but I see it from you side as well. You did give him 5:1 on a river call.