AQo vs way too big a field, man this sucks.

[W. Deranged]

I do not like this argument.

I am a strong advocate of raising certain overcards; namely, those that you stand to increase your chance of winning if you hit your card.

If you look in this week's Jake The Snake digest, I put up a whole crazy poll about a bunch of weak overcard hands where I think raising is a viable option.

Here I don't think it helps. We are in a big field and may get three bet if we raise. But, most importantly, are outs are pretty clean . If we hit an A or Q we are much heavier favorites to win than if our cards were QJ or something like that. Given, we may encourage others out who have small pairs and may redraw against us or may dirty our A or Q outs, but this is not nearly as big a consideration as it would be if our overcards were weaker.

Also, note that by not raising on the flop, we actually increase our ability to protect our hand on the turn when we do hit it there. If we raise and it is checked to us on the turn after we hit an A or Q, we may only get one bet in. If the bettor in front of us instead continues to bet the turn, we may get a raise in, which has excellent value in terms of hand protection.

So, my basic point is that I much prefer to raise weak overcards on the flop (given that you have some clear reason to continue being part of the hand... such as combo draws) than strong ones, because strong ones don't need the tactical help.

Tactical raises have a price, and it is important to recognize that you often stand to gain more from them in situations where you are weaker than when you are stronger.


As for folding to a flop three-bet, that is very bad. Putting two bets in on the flop and folding a third get a trillion to one is bad poker. Sure, we may be drawing thin, but we will have live outs often enough that folding would be quite weak in my opinion.