Analyze This The battle of two large stacks

[webiggy]

I respect your opinion MLG and having read many of your posts, give you major props for your analysis, but this is wasn't a justification for my betting (this was my actual analysis during the hand) and my read was obviously correct. Now, having said that, I was truely afraid of the two pair (which is why I didn't set him in), and figured the worse case scenario was that I was drawing to a three outer.

You are right, we both hit big hands. If anything, I think he made the wrong read, (although, I don't think that I KNEW that he had at the time) thinking that his ace was better or that he was going to chase me away with his big bet. Now perhaps, I'm projecting, but, my experience has been that players more often will check raise, or check call big bets if they know they have the best hand and will make their move on the turn if there is room to do so. That's how I might play it most times. As for the flush draw, I'll open with a big bet to semi-bluff, but will call, not re-raise a flush draw in case I miss my flush on the turn and am set all-in in case my opponent does have a made hand (like TPTK). That way, I can get away from my hand on the turn and still continue to play. I agree it was a scary hand, but not one that many players would be able to get away from.

This brings me to an interesting point. Pushing small edges as is being discussed so vigorously on another thread. I don't necessarily push unless I know I have the best of it, or am short stacked and have to out of preservation. I think that the fact that he didn't push all in on the flop after my raise was that he might not have wanted me to call with a better hand, or he didn't give me credit for having the better kicker. Leaving some of his chips on the table, left him with options. Perhaps that because I didn't re-raise all in in this position, it's very likely that he pushed all in thinking that my call was a sign of weakness and pot committment, making his turn bet correct.

Even if I was wrong (poker is in fact a game of imperfect information), I thought that the fact that I was thinking in these terms was the important factor. BTW, this posting is not an exercise of self-engrandizing, but rather to open the forum for some debate as well as to see how other players might be thinking in this type of hand.

I'm curious if any other lurkers would have at least called this hand down regardless if they thought they might be behind.

[MLG]

i don't fault your analysis. My point was only that with regards to not putting him on a set you said that you would expect him to check with a set as you will be aggresive. That makes sense. Why then, thinking that, do you think an A is likely when he bets out? Don't you think he would check a big A hoping you would be aggresive in that situation as well?

[webiggy]

Actually, no! Remember, he's just as afraid of the flush draw as I am so his initial bet was aimed at getting information and charging me for the flush. It's also possible that if he put me on a pocket pair, a $1k bet with a small ace (my not knowing what his hand was) could get me off of my pair if he was only representing. Now the fact that I came over the top of his opener could have said to him, "I don't believe you've trumped my pair," causing him to bet showing me that really did have an ace, but was still vulnerable.

I think that the tell came when he came over the top, but not for all of his chips. When the flush card hit, it's possible that he held his nose and bet, but I really think because I didn't set him all in after his re-raise, that I might have been weaker than his AQ.

[MLG]

I think we're talking across each other here, which is my fault for not quoting your post in my response. Several Points.

1. As far as I am concerned the hand ended after he reraised you to 7k. Either you are committed to playing this hand here for all your chips, or you are folding. So, the turn card is somewhat inconsequential.

2. In your original post you said:
[ QUOTE ]
Now, on the flop on this hand, I didn't give the BB credit for a set. Given our stack sizes, I thought that $1k was too healthy a bet. I would have expected him to slow play the set with an ace on the board

[/ QUOTE ]
So my question is, why do you expect him to slowplay a set, and not slowplay an A if he flopped A big?

My contention is simply that if your opponent would bet out with AQ here he would also bet out with a set. I'm not saying that any of this would (or should) change the decisions you made, and the way you played the hand.

[webiggy]

Thanks for the clarification and I hear you loud and clear. BTW, I really appreciate your attention to this, because this hand has stuck with me for a while because it was obviously very pivotal and has gotten me thinking about the concepts of keeping pots small, the wisdom of pushing all-in with marginal holdings and the like. I wish I could slow my brain down enough to write on essay on the cons all-in bets (regardless of whether you have the nuts or not).

I understand your point and now see the inconsistency in my thinking as regards to distinguishing his hand based on his $1k bet. Sure, he would be equally afraid of the flush with a set as well as TPTK. I would also bet out with a set given that board. I agree with you.

So in that light, it may have been a mistake not to give him credit for the set. But for some reason, the opener didn't scream set, because TPTK is far more vulnerable a holding and that bet said to me that he had an ace or that he wanted me to think he was stronger than he was. Given that I thought that he was aggressive, yet reasonable, the bet looked like a hand that was weaker than mine and not feigning weakness. Now it's true that I misread his ace insofar as it wasn't as weak as I thought.

I wish he was reading this, because I would love to know what he was thinking. He obviously wasn't afraid of my flush on the turn given his bet and his bet looked like he was protecting a hand. When the flush hit, I have to believe that he was using his position to represent the flush (even though his flop re-raise would suggest he was protecting and not semi-bluffing). That's why this hand was so interesting to me, because the potential for the misread was so great and the margin for error so small.

I also realize the read here was more a gamble than anything, which is why I played it cautiously aggressive.

Thanks again for the posts and pointing out the deficiencies. That's why I'm here.