A hand Entity and I talked about
 

And regardless of the results I still disagree with him.

I open raise red JJ UTG+1. An LPP cold calls in MP1 and a player with TAGggish 17/9 stats after 100 hands 3-bets from the SB. A LAG BB calls two and I cap. Everyone calls.

Flop: (16 SB) J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
SB bets, BB folds, I raise, MP1 folds, SB 3-bets, I call.

Turn: (11 BB) Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
SB bets, I raise, SB calls.

River: (15 BB) K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
SB checks, I

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

Are the odds of him paying off with AA higher than those of him c/ring with KK?

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

[ QUOTE ]
Are the odds of him paying off with AA higher than those of him c/ring with KK?

[/ QUOTE ]

this seems to sum it up. he'll payoff with AA (6 ways) 100% of the time, so he'd need to check-raise KK (3 ways) 100% of the time for us to break even with a bet-call line. if he c/r's KK less than 100%, betting the river makes $$.

bet-folding aside.. but you'd have to be quite confident he isn't fps'ing it up to lay this one down to a c/r.

I don't think AA 3-bets the turn (which would make us more confident in KK over AA here). i must be missing something.

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

Sb's turn call (rather than raise) makes it more less likely that he has AA and more likely that he has KK. I, therefore, check behind.

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

[ QUOTE ]
Sb's turn call (rather than raise) makes it more less likely that he has AA and more likely that he has KK. I, therefore, check behind.

[/ QUOTE ]
i disagree. he could be fearing the set here. its hard for TAGs to 3 bet with an overpair with this type of board and action. I like bet/call on the river.

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sb's turn call (rather than raise) makes it more less likely that he has AA and more likely that he has KK. I, therefore, check behind.

[/ QUOTE ]
i disagree. he could be fearing the set here. its hard for TAGs to 3 bet with an overpair with this type of board and action. I like bet/call on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jason and I had almost this exact same exchange a minute ago. I agree with silky.

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think AA 3-bets the turn making us more confident in KK over AA here. i must be missing something.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMHO, the difference between KK and AA is huge, here. Villain with AA, is beaten by only 3 combos of Js. Villain with KK, is beaten by an additional 6 combos of AA. This is significant and villain with AA is much freer to pop the turn. The inference should be drawn that since he did not pop the turn that he does not have AA; this, leaving KK as his logical hand.

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't think AA 3-bets the turn making us more confident in KK over AA here. i must be missing something.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMHO, the difference between KK and AA is huge, here. Villain with AA, is beaten by only 3 combos of Js. Villain with KK, is beaten by an additional 6 combos of AA. This is significant and villain with AA is much freer to pop the turn. The inference should be drawn that since he did not pop the turn that he does not have AA; this, leaving KK as his logical hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you miss that there is a Q on the board as well? 3-betting this turn with AA is not solid poker.

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

Villain is beaten by an additional 3 combos of QQ on the turn. While jason himself might play KK the same way as a set here (calling flop 3 bet and popping the turn) I don't think most players would and a villain with decent hand reading and a bit of fear might read jason's flop/turn play as indicating his AA is now drawing.

edit to say: damn, Rob types fast.

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't think AA 3-bets the turn making us more confident in KK over AA here. i must be missing something.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMHO, the difference between KK and AA is huge, here. Villain with AA, is beaten by only 3 combos of Js. Villain with KK, is beaten by an additional 6 combos of AA. This is significant and villain with AA is much freer to pop the turn. The inference should be drawn that since he did not pop the turn that he does not have AA; this, leaving KK as his logical hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

the Q turn vs a blank is what kills AA's turn 3-betting potential.

edit: I type slow, but at least I can read 2p2 at work again, eh Entity [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

[ QUOTE ]
And regardless of the results I still disagree with him.

I open raise red JJ UTG+1. An LPP cold calls in MP1 and a player with TAGggish 17/9 stats after 100 hands 3-bets from the SB. A LAG BB calls two and I cap. Everyone calls.

Flop: (16 SB) J[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 3[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] 4[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
SB bets, BB folds, I raise, MP1 folds, SB 3-bets, I call.

Turn: (11 BB) Q[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
SB bets, I raise, SB calls.

River: (15 BB) K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]
SB checks, I

[/ QUOTE ]

AK 12 combos
AA 6 combos
KK 3 combos
QQ 3 combos
TT 6 combos

Now we start discounting:

QQ seems less likely because I would expect a turn 3-bet.

AA is tough.. because I would also expect a turn 3-bet, although if he is the type to think scary thoughts..I could see him going passive.

Kind of the same thing with KK although his going passive would be a little more explainable due to your PF cap.

AK seems a little goofy but not altogether out of the picture, except for the fact he would have kind of overplayed it... I can't really see a normal player trying to run a capper off of a Jack high flop.

So basically the two finalists are AA and KK. HE seems to have played it a little more like KK. But I am kind of bothered by limiting him to those two hands. As there are some outside possbilites of hands that he may have played in a simaliar fashion.

This is where I really whip out the HUD and am looking at things like Flop aggression, turn aggression stuff like that.

I will say this I will not bet/fold this hand. Just looking at the board his payoff (besides AA and AK) hands would be KQ, KJ, QJ (which he also probably would have three-bet the turn), maybe AQ. Thing is of those hands only KJs makes any sense the whole way through and also is not very likely considering your holding.

The thing is that if you take only the AA or AK combos and discount them heavily based upon his play. You still have about a 50/50 shot. Factoring in the possbility of a weekly played QQ (which he may now not checkraise) and the kind of unlikely suited hands he might have raised PF (KQs...etc). I think you have a very thin and unenjoyable Bet/call.

Interesting hand.. will give something to work on tonight.

BTW, I like steam rolling these hands... If he has AA or KK he may not slowdown on the turn anyway (If you cap the flop) so you get to cap and are more likely to get your 2-bets on the turn.

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

KQ, KJ and QJ are all incredibly unlikely give villain's stats and his PF/flop play.

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

[ QUOTE ]
KQ, KJ and QJ are all incredibly unlikely give villain's stats and his PF/flop play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I stated that. But the suited varieties of these hands are a possbility however remote and with a seemingly close decision.. some thought has to extend to them.

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

IMHO, some possibilities are so remote they need not figure into an analysis of a situation.

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sb's turn call (rather than raise) makes it more less likely that he has AA and more likely that he has KK. I, therefore, check behind.

[/ QUOTE ]
i disagree. he could be fearing the set here. its hard for TAGs to 3 bet with an overpair with this type of board and action. I like bet/call on the river.

[/ QUOTE ]

Jason and I had almost this exact same exchange a minute ago. I agree with silky.

[/ QUOTE ]

These statements and reads are undoubtedly true and correct but the relevant question is what to do on the river. It is still correct to affirm (this assumes that the only relevant points in question are the KK v AA scenario):

That with AA, villain is more likely/apt to raise the turn

Now the above must be tempered with the thought that Villain can think that hero hand may be comprised of JJ, QQ, KK, AA while Hero can take QQ off of his list for Villain.

Heros hand range, in Villain's eyes, is wider than Villain's hand is in Hero's eyes.

The question still remains, will villain pay off with AA?
He ought see that with that hand he beats exactly zero hands in Hero's range and chops with 1 hand. Why will he pay off?

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why will he pay off?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because he's suffering from entitlement syndrome.

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

Because the pot is big and he has aces? I'm not sure I get your point.

edit to say: Rob, do you do anything but steal thunder from my posts? Just curious.

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

Tell me you didn't bet/fold :-p.

I bet/call.

I'm sure some extensive combinatorial analysis will come up with the optimal decision here. But really in hands like this it is not possible to do that kind of analysis at the table. The key factors in my mind are that the pot is huge, so he is going to pay off with plenty of hands including some very weak ones, including AA/AJ. He will get here this way some of the time with AK--some TAGs are just overaggressive. He will have KQs some of the time. If he were to sit down and really think about the play of this hand he wouldn't be able to checkraise the river with a hand that you beat. But if he knows that he's against jason_t he may do just that as he is getting 8-1 on a bluff. He might very well checkraise here with KQ for whatever reason after getting all this way. If he checkraises me I know I will see KK the vast majority of the time but I'm certainly not folding.

I don't fold sets to aggressive players in huge pots. I do value bet in huge pots.

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

"The question still remains, will villain pay off with AA?
He ought see that with that hand he beats exactly zero hands in Hero's range and chops with 1 hand. Why will he pay off? "

yeah, most (damn near all) people are paying off here...most players (even more so because this is low limit online) are not able to calculate a weighted hand range or even hand read well enough to fold AA on the river heads up in a 16BB pot. even if they are capable, most can't do it in the three second between seeing the K and hitting the call button...

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

[ QUOTE ]
The question still remains, will villain pay off with AA?
He ought see that with that hand he beats exactly zero hands in Hero's range and chops with 1 hand. Why will he pay off?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there's a simple answer for this depending on what game it is. In certain games, players have a much more difficult time letting go of AA before showdown. But jason didn't say whether this was the Party 2/4, the Bellagio 4/8, or the Commerce whatever.

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

[ QUOTE ]
Because the pot is big and he has aces? I'm not sure I get your point.


[/ QUOTE ]

OK... That's a fair statement. My comments are made using the read given that Villain has TAG stats. Now, maybe I overstepped and credited him with the ability to think and my comments are made in that context. I may, obviously, be wrong. People call the river because "it;s just one more" all of the time.

If the question were put, "should Villain (if you were Villain) call hero's river bet?" Would you?

Edit to say that it is not uncommon for people to say that I credit my opponents with more thinking than I should. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why will he pay off?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because he's suffering from entitlement syndrome.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think he _should_ fold AA? Why or why not?

That could become a very interesting discussion.

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why will he pay off?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because he's suffering from entitlement syndrome.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really think he _should_ fold AA? Why or why not?

That could become a very interesting discussion.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he knows his opponent, yes, he should. It's a pretty [censored] board and he has top pair. If he doesn't know anything other than jason has folded for a while and now he's not folding, then I think calling down after the turn raise is more reasonable.

Rob

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

[ QUOTE ]
IMHO, some possibilities are so remote they need not figure into an analysis of a situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you have all the time in the world and a >5% swing (not sure that that is the case here) makes the difference between a bet and a check... remote possbilities should be considered if only for the purpose of thoroughness.

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

so, what are the results? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

Most of the time I hate SSHE based arguments that amount to "the pot is big don't fold" when hand analysis and reads make for a much better explanation of things, but if Villain has AA here, against jason (who I assume is an unknown to him) then basically he has to think "the pot is big I shouldn't fold."

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

Well, I guess I can see it as an academic exercise, but given villain's stats I think he has those hands like 1% of the time or less.

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

I know this is a remote consideration given the board and how bad it is to use this line with AA here, but the fact that villain may/may not be aware of the concept of checkraising the river to save bets adds a bit of weight to bet-calling the river. It's a stretch though, since anyone good enough to know how to make a play like that should be able to discern that this is a bad board/player to use this against.

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

[11:01] <BDids> I want to bet, fold in jason's hand
[11:01] <BDids> but I can't
[11:01] <BDids> so I bet call
[11:02] <BDids> if you have a solid enough read, he's never raising you with a hand you beat there
[11:02] <BDids> but 100 hands
[11:03] <BDids> isn't enough for me to put him strictly on AA KK QQ based on that preflop and flop play
[11:03] <BDids> so I pay off like fish

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

[ QUOTE ]
Most of the time I hate SSHE based arguments that amount to "the pot is big don't fold" when hand analysis and reads make for a much better explanation of things, but if Villain has AA here, against jason (who I assume is an unknown to him) then basically he has to think "the pot is big I shouldn't fold."

[/ QUOTE ]

I was trying to come up with a game theory argument for AA calling the river, however unfortunately given the action so far it really really seems like the AA is dicked.

I think the SSHE argument holds much more weight when your opponent is "an unknown TAG" or "a 19/12/2", because then you have much less predictability and much more deviation from optimal play. Especially at the 2/4 level (although this hand actually doesn't have a listed limit). And the SSHE argument definitely holds a ton of weight when your opponent is not a TAG, because then there is a huge component of unpredictability to his actions.

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

When I am playing well, I call the turn with AA and maybe fold the river.

When I am playing bad I 3-bet the turn and call down if capped.

As of late I think I've been 3-betting the river too. HELLO DOWNSWING!!!

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

This is a great discussion and I have little to add to what is already going on, but I will say:

If villain is going to put any money in on this river with any hand, he should probably be check-raising. In other words, game-theoretically, if villain is going to check this river, he needs to be checking with the intent of raising a one-pair hand reasonably often.

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

[ QUOTE ]
When I am playing well, I call the turn with AA and maybe fold the river.

When I am playing bad I 3-bet the turn and call down if capped.

As of late I think I've been 3-betting the river too. HELLO DOWNSWING!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

I will never have enough data on a TAG to know that they play perfectly. 16-1 is enough for me to call this river with AA and feel fine about it.

In the same vein, 19-1 is enough for me to call the river checkraise with JJ. In fact I wouldn't be able to respect myself if I laid down to a checkraise here, but maybe that's just a personal issue I need to solve. But it certainly wouldn't feel right to surrender this huge pot to a TAG who may or may not be david sklansky.

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

[ QUOTE ]

Did you miss that there is a Q on the board as well? 3-betting this turn with AA is not solid poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Didn't miss it but chose to ignore it becasue I felt that the overriding issue had to deal with the ratio or relationship of Villain's hand being AA v KK. Clearly the turn Q puts villain in bigger trouble but it does not change the fact that AA is still a far superior holding on the turn than KK and therefore is significantly more likely to 3 bet the turn. It is still more likely, even if incorrect.

I am coming around a bit to seeing the value in a bet but getting 3 bet would suck, really suck.

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

[ QUOTE ]
When I am playing bad I 3-bet the turn and call down if capped.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's pure spew, IMO. Stop doing that. Use your reads.

When a good player gives action on the flop but just calls your 3-bet and raises the turn, you're usually pretty hosed.

Edited to add, given the preflop, flop, board, etc... blah blah.

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

That's just the worst river though. Think about the hands he'll play like this, a K is just so ugly in that spot for AA.

In my original post was that I'd have to pay of with JJJ here, and I might do the same with AA, however, I tink there is a time when our read can supercede any pot size and we need to fold when we're beat.

The reason against that is just that we don't have a good enough read, but if we did, it's fold city.

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

[ QUOTE ]
it does not change the fact that AA is still a far superior holding on the turn than KK and therefore is significantly more likely to 3 bet the turn.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess if Dids is the villain then you have a point.

But seriously, only spew monkeys 3-bet the turn with AA here against a fellow TAG.

Sorry Dids. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

[ QUOTE ]
The reason against that is just that we don't have a good enough read, but if we did, it's fold city.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. But a pertinent question might be, "is a good enough read even possible online?"

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

I don't like the preflop cap given the situation. If your read is correct on the SB you aren't gaining anything w/the other two players in the hand. Given the SBs range and the other two with the frequency of overcards on the flop, just call the 3-bet w/JJ.

I like the idea of playing the flop faster and capping. As if he does have an overpair, AA, KK, the TAG will often c/r the turn and you'll get and extra BB. In addition if he's going to slow down w/AK, often he'll just check the turn here and you missed an SB.

Given the way you played it; I still bet the damn river. He'll have AA, AK enough to slow down and just call. It's thin but there is value in it.

If you checked the river:

misplayed on every street. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

Re: A hand Entity and I talked about
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The reason against that is just that we don't have a good enough read, but if we did, it's fold city.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. But a pertinent question might be, "is a good enough read even possible online?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, I make sweet online reads all the time.

But then I ignore them and do something dumb anyway. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]