Valuebetting A-high?
 

50-100, 6 handed

UTG+1 raises, he's unknown but has seemed solid and aggressive so far. I 3bet AsQh from the button, blinds fold, UTG+1 calls.

Flop:
7s6h2d
He checks, I bet, he calls.
Turn:
Jh
check check
River:
7c
he checks, i bet

What do you think?

Re: Valuebetting A-high?
 

makes sense, he's betting into you with any pair, and will call with most Ace highs

also if he has KQ he'll fold and you dont have to show.

Re: Valuebetting A-high?
 

Would you bet AT?

Re: Valuebetting A-high?
 

I think the number of times you are beat, and get bluff check-raised make this play quite bad. It's not a matter of how often your ahead, i think its a matter of how often a worse hands calls you to make this play work, and i dont think its often enough. P.S. A-T would be a very easy check behind.

Re: Valuebetting A-high?
 

I value bet Ace high sometimes, but I don't like your bet here. Then again, I don't know your opponent nor what his opinion of you is. But against a generic unknown opponent, there really aren't all that many reasonable hands he can call you with that you can beat.

Re: Valuebetting A-high?
 

[ QUOTE ]
50-100, 6 handed

UTG+1 raises, he's unknown but has seemed solid and aggressive so far. I 3bet AsQh from the button, blinds fold, UTG+1 calls.

Flop:
7s6h2d
He checks, I bet, he calls.
Turn:
Jh
check check
River:
7c
he checks, i bet

What do you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

The other opponent could be checking to induce a bluff... sense you have so revealed the strength of your hand on the turn. I think a better line would be bet turn and check the end... but the question here is whether it is a good bet on the end.

I see no hands that he can call with that you beat. There may be some value here "as Tommy would say" in your opponent not seeing your hand... but outside of that... if you get called you will lose. I think it is a bad bet!!

Re: Valuebetting A-high?
 

I do like a river bet here for value. A10 or less I would check-behind (although I think this can be read-dependent). Given your description, it's extremely likely that villain doesn't have a pair. I think he'll either have check-raised the flop, or capped PF with AK, so you're most likely good.

Given that you checked the turn, and now are betting the river (when the river card almost certaintly didn't help you, unless you were being tricky), from the villain's perspective, the chance that you are bluff is high, and you'll be called by a lot of A highs I think (unless villain has a good read on you).

Re: Valuebetting A-high?
 

Hi ike,

The range of aces he can have is very small, and he'll surely call with any pair. I don't think you're a favorite when called, and when you mix in the occassional lost pot to a bluff raise, I'd argue that checking here is the play.

Good luck.
Eric

Re: Valuebetting A-high?
 

I agree with a lot Eric's said. But I still think A-K should be bet. A-Q is very borderline.

Another thing you should note here is that you have an EASY call of a checkraise here with A-K. I would say gaining two big bets on desperation checkraises from K-high hands or worse are some of the value of betting behind here (in other words, you will often get one bet from a worse ace, but actually two bets from even worse hands a small percentage of the time!).

All this, of course, unless your opponent is

1) very good

2) has strong reason to believe you won't check two streets in a row

Sort of putting myself in the "very good" bracket here, there are strong-type of opponents where I would actually checkraise pretty much anything resembling a hand here (including most pocket pairs, although I would perhaps lead with the very lowest ones for fear that my opponent was checking a small pair behind on the turn himself).

lars

Re: Valuebetting A-high?
 

Hi Lars,

I'm glad you mentioned AK, because after I posted I started thinking about this hand and felt that it was MUCH closer to a bet. I ended up deciding that checking that hand is still best, but the extra 12 ways he can have AQ makes a big difference and I agree a bet there seems reasonable.

Good luck.
Eric