Re: AQ under fire, ok to let go?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Does it have anything to do with encouraging KK and QQ to continue betting into us on the turn when he only has two outs? Seems sort of like the WA/WB (check/call-check/call-bet) line

[/ QUOTE ]

It is similar to that line. The only thing a raise will do anywhere in this hand is fold a worse hand and get raised (or worse called) by a better one.

[ QUOTE ]
just with a much larger kicker than we'd usually have when we take this line. Use it cause he's a tight player who three bet preflop?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup. His 3-bet and the fact that there is a J (and then a K) on the board puts us behind a lot of his hands that we'd normally be ahead of when we hit our ace. We'd love to keep collecting bets from AT/QQ/TT/99/A9s/etc.

Re: AQ under fire, ok to let go?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Are you thinking that this player won't bet 99/TT/QQ on the river after we check behind? Or that based on the size of the pot, the likely hand distribution, and the likelyhood of one of those hands checking that we are too likely behind when he bets to call a river bet unimproved?

[/ QUOTE ]

When I glanced at this hand last night, my initial thought is that the math will say we are likely behind in relation to the pot size and should fold on ther river unimproved. I haven't done the math, but it shouldn't be that hard.

The player description kind of indicates he won't bet 99/TT/QQ on the river after a check behind.

Regardless, the turn is a clear check.

Re: AQ under fire, ok to let go?
 

[ QUOTE ]
he player description kind of indicates he won't bet 99/TT/QQ on the river after a check behind.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I was thinking this as well.

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless, the turn is a clear check.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed