Non-standard defense for a standard play?
 

Everyone seems to think leading out into the preflop raiser is a great play when you flop a big hand (eg a set). But, since everybody knows this, shouldn't hands like TPTK be easier to get away from in that spot? A lot of posts in the NL forums seem to focus on people getting into trouble when they raise pre-flop and then face aggression, so I thought some discussion would be useful.

So for example, you raise in MP with AK, BB calls (both stacks 100BB). Flop is Ace high rainbow, BB leads out with a pot size bet.

Does anybody just fold here? Ever? I know that play comes across as insanely weak tight, but sometimes that bet can only be made by a superior hand (or air, and who bluffs like that?). Do you just see worse aces here enough to always see it out? All thoughts welcome.

Re: Non-standard defense for a standard play?
 

If I'm BB, I lead with a huge variety of hands on that flop. Folding would be a big mistake. The only way I could fold that is if I had an awesome read.

Re: Non-standard defense for a standard play?
 

Thats why you have to lead here with more than just sets! Cmon now, you'll only lead into the raiser with a set??? not a draw or pair or air?

Re: Non-standard defense for a standard play?
 

With a read, I think you can fold. I've found leading flush draws or straight draws into the raise and then pushing to the inevitable raise is very profitable. Variety is the spice of life.

Re: Non-standard defense for a standard play?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've found leading flush draws or straight draws into the raise and then pushing to the inevitable raise is very profitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

<400NL, nu uh. >400NL, yeahmetoo.

fim

Re: Non-standard defense for a standard play?
 

[ QUOTE ]

So for example, you raise in MP with AK, BB calls (both stacks 100BB). Flop is Ace high rainbow, BB leads out with a pot size bet.


[/ QUOTE ]game/player dependent, but i have folded here many times.