A Hand Against Roy Cooke

[Kevin J]

This hand generated some discussion in one of my local card rooms. It was played by a Chicago local against Roy Cooke. I thought it was interesting. Here's the hand as I understand it.

The Chicago local raised UTG with AQ and Roy made it 3 bets from late position. Heads-up.

The flop came AXX. Local checked, Roy bet, local called.

The turn was a rag. Local checked, Roy bet, local called.

The river was a K. Local checked, Roy bet, local called and lost to KK.

The first question is, did the Chicago local make a bad check on the turn? I didn't necessarily think so. I believe he should've made whichever play gets Roy to put another bet in. If checking accomplishes this, then fine.

The next question is, did Roy make a bad bet on the turn? Roy is either safely ahead or drawing very thin with KK, so is there any compelling reason for him to bet? Then again, the Chicago local was unkown to him. Roy could've been thinking, "I'm gonna call the river if I check, so why not bet? If he's got QQ or a worse hand, I'll charge him to draw". What does everyone else think?

The third question is, what should the Chicago local have done after Roy bet the turn? A top Chicago pro, thought check/raising the flop was in order. Failing that, check/raising the turn was a MUST in his opinion. His reasoning was that the Chicago local should've been content to take the pot at any point. How can Roy make a bad bet on the turn, when he never gets properly punished for it?

So another question is, should the Chicago local be looking to take this pot down right away? Or should he try and get Roy to put in as much "bad" money as possible? Don't forget, there's still a small chance the Chicago local is beat, although this is probably not something to be overly afraid of. I suppose there's a point in every hand, where you need to balance the importance between winning the pot and gaining value for your hand. Was that balance tipped here against a two-out hand?


Anyway, I thought the hand was interesting and might generate some discussion here.