AK hand

[CashFlo]

This question might seem very rookie...but:

how wrong is it on a scale of 1-10 to "check with outs" (as mentioned in the "Important Concepts on the Turn" from HEPFAP) and why?

[shant]

I still say you should stop-n-go these situations. What do you do now? You have to bet twice now, and he may just call your turn bet to raise the river, which is what I would do with the K[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img] HU. I guess you can bet the turn and if he calls, check-fold the river? Now that I think about it, whether you 3-bet the flop or stop-n-go, it doesn't change the play that much.

So, from that rambling thought, I guess I'm gonna say bet here, fold to a raise, if he calls, check-fold the river.

[SippinSoma]

If Hero were in position, checking behind here would be wise.

[molawn2mo]

[ QUOTE ]
Do I understand correctly that you assume a thinking 3/6 LAG villain?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. sorry for the cloudy writing. I do not assume a thinking LAG, though, they are around and may be known to the OP. The "thinking" statement was just my rambling on how this hand would play out against a "thinker."

That said, versus the standard bluffer lagass type, I more than before think that you should get to showdown as cheap as possible (UI) and the best way to do that is to CC the turn. Let him bluff at it.

[CashFlo]

mmm...certainly.

However, the text discusses checking with outs when first to act.

[RacersEdge]

I think I want to see the SD here.

With that flop, obviously Ax(heart) and Kx(heart) as villains hand can be ruled out - common hands a VPIP of 48 would play. So that puts less belief in at least a flopped flush.

You could still have a better 2 pair - and still have 4 outs. Pot is not very big, but I think just big enough to see the river card.