Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke
 

Ahead? you're kidding. Roy played this hand very badly. With AQ check-calling is the best default play, agreed, but against sophisticated opponents this is transparent. No way KK is ahead, no way someone is leading in to Roy Cooke, aceless here that often.

Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke
 

Thanks Mason- Just one more question..

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

I would see the difference if there were no ace out, because it might be important not to let overcards fall. But JJ seems about the same as KK here. I can't think of many hands containing a loose king or queen that a solid player would call the flop with, that wouldn't already include an ace (would he check/call with KQ?). So checking even JJ from Roy's spot, seems pretty safe to me. Am I missing something?

Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke
 

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

Even if you do EXPECT to be ahead (and I'm not sure I agree with that), you certainly can't EXPECT to be called by a worse hand. I'm not saying this is a reason to check, but I also can't find a very compelling reason to bet either. If the flop truly was AXX (which often won't be the case), you have a better chance of collecting another bet by checking the turn. Don't you think?

Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke
 

Dynasty,

I agree with you and Mason and anyone else who thinks that checkcalling was a good policy on this hand. But, that so many players would checkcall does some damage to your reasoning below:

"Check-calling this hand down should be your standard play."

And as we now know, for many it is.

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

I question "almost every time" because, what about all the times that the Chicago player and you and Mason and me and anyone else employs the "standard play" you recommend, and check the flop and turn with an ace? To whatever extend players checkcall with the ace, then a turn check by Roy earns merit, yes?

Interesting hand.

Tommy

Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke
 

No way KK is ahead, no way someone is leading in to Roy Cooke, aceless here that often.

Chicago didn't lead into Roy Cooke once post-flop.

The reason KK is good here most of the time is that the other player is checking. Just look at the responses in this thread. The vast majority of posters want to check-raise either the flop or turn. That's exactly how most players will play the hand because they aren't "sophisticated". They'll be aggressive by either betting out or check-raising with their top pair/strong kicker. When they check and call, the typical player is telling you he can't beat top pair. He's far more likely to have QQ-99 than an Ace.

For the same reasons, Roy played the hand perfectly. His opponent's checks should be interpreted as meaning he can't beat an Ace but is likely to call down with QQ-99.

Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke
 

Even if you do EXPECT to be ahead (and I'm not sure I agree with that), you certainly can't EXPECT to be called by a worse hand.

I expect QQ-99 to call more than often enough to make up for those times that I'm behind AQ or AK. Worse hands call all the time.

Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke
 

And as we now know, for many (check-calling) is (the standard play).

That's not my experience. My experience is that the vast majority of players will be aggressive by either betting or check-raising with their top pair AK/AQ/AJ. The posts at the beginning of this thread reinforce this. The vast majority of the responders wanted to checkraise either the flop or turn. I expect most players, especially at 30-60, will also be aggressive with their top pair.

I question "almost every time"...

I suppose I could change it to "a significant majority of the time". It's certainly often enought to show a profit by betting KK on the turn.

Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke
 

So checking even JJ from Roy's spot, seems pretty safe to me. Am I missing something?

Betting JJ in Roy Cooke's position is better because there will be many opponents in Chicago's position who will fold KK or QQ believing that you wouldn't continue betting if you didn't have at least an Ace. The value of position is often to win a pot your cards aren't entitled to by betting when checked to on a scary board. There's also the minor benefit of betting KQ to fold if it's still around.

Excellent Point! Thanks
 

Re: A Hand Against Roy Cooke
 

So playing defensively works? True the Chicago guy is only a 2-1 favorite and out of position, but a turn check-raise might win the pot right away. I would check-raise the turn and check-call the river.