Re: aa vs set
 

Reads are so very important here, does he minraise with draws? with the nuts? with overpairs to test your cb? Against unknown I think I'd play it like you, call and c/r turn allin, not sure about that specific turn card however.

Against some TAG's that I "know" have AA I can raise this flop with like 88 and make him fold everytime putting me on a straight or set or whatever.

Re: aa vs set
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
aggressive KK is not going to check turn

[/ QUOTE ]

If anyone limps TT-KK utg 5 handed they limp-reraise

[/ QUOTE ]

What games have you been playing?

Re: aa vs set
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
aggressive KK is not going to check turn

[/ QUOTE ]

If anyone limps TT-KK utg 5 handed they limp-reraise

[/ QUOTE ]

What games have you been playing?

[/ QUOTE ]

so you see people normally limping QQ and KK five handed? I'll give you TT, I do see people limping TT utg 5 handed, but that's about it

Re: aa vs set
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
aggressive KK is not going to check turn

[/ QUOTE ]

If anyone limps TT-KK utg 5 handed they limp-reraise

[/ QUOTE ]

What games have you been playing?

[/ QUOTE ]

so you see people normally limping QQ and KK five handed? I'll give you TT, I do see people limping TT utg 5 handed, but that's about it

[/ QUOTE ]

I see people who never ever ever raise preflop, or atleast extremely rarely, and then I see them showdown like KJo, while at the same time they are limp calling AA KK QQ etc. Although this is usually very easily spotted through PT stats, which are not provided by the OP here.

Re: aa vs set
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
aggressive KK is not going to check turn

[/ QUOTE ]

If anyone limps TT-KK utg 5 handed they limp-reraise

[/ QUOTE ]

What games have you been playing?

[/ QUOTE ]

so you see people normally limping QQ and KK five handed? I'll give you TT, I do see people limping TT utg 5 handed, but that's about it

[/ QUOTE ]

I see people who never ever ever raise preflop, or atleast extremely rarely, and then I see them showdown like KJo, while at the same time they are limp calling AA KK QQ etc. Although this is usually very easily spotted through PT stats, which are not provided by the OP here.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, you're both right, there are some players that will limp just about anything even 5 handed, but without reads that's like saying he could be doing this with 72o. I don't think these hands should be given any serious considerations unless we already know villain.

Re: aa vs set
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
aggressive KK is not going to check turn

[/ QUOTE ]

If anyone limps TT-KK utg 5 handed they limp-reraise

[/ QUOTE ]

What games have you been playing?

[/ QUOTE ]

so you see people normally limping QQ and KK five handed? I'll give you TT, I do see people limping TT utg 5 handed, but that's about it

[/ QUOTE ]

I see people who never ever ever raise preflop, or atleast extremely rarely, and then I see them showdown like KJo, while at the same time they are limp calling AA KK QQ etc. Although this is usually very easily spotted through PT stats, which are not provided by the OP here.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, you're both right, there are some players that will limp just about anything even 5 handed, but without reads that's like saying he could be doing this with 72o. I don't think these hands should be given any serious considerations unless we already know villain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it's just the thing is, I can't give a good answer here without any kind of read as it's very dependant on that. Maybe he limps monsters(slowplays them, not very uncommon), maybe he doesn't, maybe he only does this with sets, or maybe he only does this with air and slowplays his sets.

I don't see why we have to assume we're beat just because he minraised us, he could easily have a shitload of hands here, draws, sets, straight, top pair+draw, top pair and no draw, overpairs, and whatnot.

Re: aa vs set
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
aggressive KK is not going to check turn

[/ QUOTE ]

If anyone limps TT-KK utg 5 handed they limp-reraise

[/ QUOTE ]

What games have you been playing?

[/ QUOTE ]

so you see people normally limping QQ and KK five handed? I'll give you TT, I do see people limping TT utg 5 handed, but that's about it

[/ QUOTE ]

I see people who never ever ever raise preflop, or atleast extremely rarely, and then I see them showdown like KJo, while at the same time they are limp calling AA KK QQ etc. Although this is usually very easily spotted through PT stats, which are not provided by the OP here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also, there are players with 5% PFR that still limp with QQ-AA.

Re: aa vs set
 

Any reason a stop and go doesn't work here?

Re: aa vs set
 

[ QUOTE ]
DISCLAIMER: Sleep depravation may be screwing up this post.
[ QUOTE ]
Fallen Hero:

As to TT and KK who have limped in raising on the turn instead of checking it, quite so, but then so will anyone who has made a set--esp a small one and wants to protect it. So, I don't think you'll be getting more info this way.


[/ QUOTE ]

As I've said before I don't think TT-KK is on villain's hand range

[ QUOTE ]
Unless I'm missing something, " he has put you to the decision, not the other way around. "

And "way too many ifs"

Granted, you're right about limping and calling a small raise against 1 opponent with J-10s or 8-7s, UTG 'perfectly sober'.-- esp in a typical 5 handed game. It might even be a +ev play

IN FACT:

"I don't need to feel lucky to raise a flush draw here"

Which sucks against AA as far as a + EV play (er..35%, right?) is a GREAT move IF you're playing against a by-the- book aggressive/tight opponent who plays only few quality hands, raises AA on a ragged flop BUT then when he's re-raised forgets his aggression, and only remembers his tightnes.


[/ QUOTE ]

being oop sucks [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img] I know there's a lot we beat here that's why I said I don't like folding on the flop, but putting villain on a range of hands here I'd say he has: a set, a combo draw, a simple flush draw or a pair (if he's really bad). Of those I'd say generally he checks behind on the turn with a pair and a bad flush draw (aka what we beat) and bets the rest.
So what I'm basically saying is that by moving in on the flop he folds everything we beat and calls with everything that beats us (or has us 50/50), by calling and checking the turn you get a better idea what his hand is (at the cost of a free card, nothing you can do here).

About the whole "going from tight agressive to weak/tight": overpairs oop on big pots (specially with that kind of flop) are horrible, there's nothing weak/tight about it.

[ QUOTE ]
Taking the risks of either going all-in and losing to a set or folding to a bluff is far bettter than going from tight/aggressive to weak/tight after the flop.


[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't disagree more [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] (and I rarely do something I consider weak tight, in fact I spend most of my time looking at hands I think I played to agressively [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img])

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, maybe sleep deprivation is screwing up my thinking but, to recap:

Preflop: Hero is BB with A, A.
UTG calls $1, 1 fold, Button calls $1, 1 fold, Hero raises to $6, UTG calls $5, Button folds.

Flop: ($13.50) 6, 9, 5 (2 players)
Hero bets $12, UTG raises to $24

Now, to my thinking, if at this point hero pushes and takes down the pot, terrific. There's enough dough.

Losing to a set? Sure it's not an easy call BUT
I still can't figure out why you don't put villain on TT-KK? Just because he limped? He's already called a raise and gone over the top on the raggedy flop.

So, if I understand what you're saying, you're putting him on a possible draw, so you check the turn and if he bets it, then THAT's the indicator that he's made his hand ( er. . . esp if a 'scare card comes? ) or already had a set on the flop.

And you don't consider this weak/tight play. Though you're giving a free card, you're going to get the info, because if he is on a draw he's going to check after you check, and if he bets (how much, btw?) you fold.

I see the logic of your thinking here but . . .

OK, time to get some sleep and have nightmares about hands I've overplayed [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Pax, all.

Re: aa vs set
 

[ QUOTE ]
Now, to my thinking, if at this point hero pushes and takes down the pot, terrific. There's enough dough.


[/ QUOTE ]

agreed

[ QUOTE ]
Losing to a set? Sure it's not an easy call BUT
I still can't figure out why you don't put villain on TT-KK? Just because he limped? He's already called a raise and gone over the top on the raggedy flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

He can have TT-KK, as far as possibilities go he can have any two cards, but it doesn't make any sense with this action so I don't consider it.

[ QUOTE ]
So, if I understand what you're saying, you're putting him on a possible draw, so you check the turn and if he bets it, then THAT's the indicator that he's made his hand ( er. . . esp if a 'scare card comes? ) or already had a set on the flop.

And you don't consider this weak/tight play. Though you're giving a free card, you're going to get the info, because if he is on a draw he's going to check after you check, and if he bets (how much, btw?) you fold.

I see the logic of your thinking here but . . .


[/ QUOTE ]

The problem with not giving away a free card in this spot is that you can't price out draws so if you make a decent sized bet and get raised you're pot commited, if you make any bet that doesn't commmit you you're giving perfect odds to draws and showing a ton of weakness so you might get pushed off the best hand by a decent player. A check looks a lot scarier than a bet here.