AA oop, i'm scared

[Wayfare]

[ QUOTE ]
2/4 NL party 6-max

i have 563, villain has me covered.

dealt AA in sb, two limpers, i make it 16 to go, bb calls, villain calls in the CO.

flop A59 monotone spades. i bet 40, bb folds, villain makes it 140. move?

[/ QUOTE ]

In a vaccuum, you will improve to the nuts 33% of the time.

That means that even if there was no dead money in the pot (and there is quite a bit) you only have to be crushed a whole heck of a lot of the time to not want to get it all-in on this flop. Or if you think he will bet on a blank turn (he probably will), c/r a blank turn all in baby.

There is no WAY you are folding this hand on the flop. NO WAY.

[Riverman]

call and pot a non spade turn

[Rotating Rabbit]

I would push this if I were playing it. If I was technologic, considering the way he plays, I would think about folding, but probably call and c/r allin any non spade turn.

[Leptyne]

A read on villain would be nice. Does he have a tendency to raise in the spots when he has position? I'm going to give him credit for 2 pr or a set. Fold or make it $300 to play. Now villain's on the spot. Calling is clearly incorrect for him too, so he should push or fold. If villain pushes I think you have pot odds to call since you're only a 2-1 dog to a made flush.

Unless villain only makes this move with the nuts I don't see a fold. Since you could very well be ahead and have outs if you're behind I'm going to invite villain to go to the felt on the flop.

[ahnuld]

Id make it 26 or more preflop. Get it allin here gladly.

[technologic]

about raising pf, i raised only to 16 by accident, i usually raise more considering there were limpers and i was oop

i had the same plan as most, i called the flop and checked a non spade turn in plans of cring all in. unfortunately, or fortunately, he moved in on the turn. move?

[Rotating Rabbit]

Easy call

He has flush here some of the time, but calling 400 into a 700 pot, off the top of my head you only need about to be good about 35-40% of the time if it were the river, but its the turn and you still have 11 outs if behind which improves your % to sub 30%. You're definitely good here 30%+ of the time.

If he had a flush, he would be better off betting for you to make a mistake and call with AK[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] or AQ[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] which are two very likely hands which he would think fold to the overbet.

As a side note, his play his optimal here if he puts you on AA, and if he does show you the flush I would start thinking he believes he has a read of some kind on you...

[wdeadwyler]

For those of you who are advocating calling and potting a non-spade turn, WHY?

If villain doesnt already have the flush than we want to get all the money in the middle as a likely 2-1 favorite. If he does have the flush, the turn being a brick means nothing to us. Why would anyone take that line here?

We take that with TP because if villain has pair+FD then he is a coinflip on flop. But we have top set here, if villain has pair+FD he is a 2-1 dog, so lets get our money in as a favorite. If villain has a flush, so be it, but leading and potting the turn will just get our money in as a bigger dog against villain's range than 3betting the flop.

[technologic]

[ QUOTE ]
For those of you who are advocating calling and potting a non-spade turn, WHY?

If villain doesnt already have the flush than we want to get all the money in the middle as a likely 2-1 favorite. If he does have the flush, the turn being a brick means nothing to us. Why would anyone take that line here?

We take that with TP because if villain has pair+FD then he is a coinflip on flop. But we have top set here, if villain has pair+FD he is a 2-1 dog, so lets get our money in as a favorite. If villain has a flush, so be it, but leading and potting the turn will just get our money in as a bigger dog against villain's range than 3betting the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

there is an opportunity to make villain make a bigger mistake by potting the turn rather than the flop, usually he's not that big of a dog by calling with a spade, and it makes it easy for him to play his hand by reraising all in, and it's easy to get away from a spade turn. a spade could also kill the action from him if he does have a spade, giving me another chance to hit my fh.

[wdeadwyler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For those of you who are advocating calling and potting a non-spade turn, WHY?

If villain doesnt already have the flush than we want to get all the money in the middle as a likely 2-1 favorite. If he does have the flush, the turn being a brick means nothing to us. Why would anyone take that line here?

We take that with TP because if villain has pair+FD then he is a coinflip on flop. But we have top set here, if villain has pair+FD he is a 2-1 dog, so lets get our money in as a favorite. If villain has a flush, so be it, but leading and potting the turn will just get our money in as a bigger dog against villain's range than 3betting the flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

there is an opportunity to make villain make a bigger mistake by potting the turn rather than the flop, usually he's not that big of a dog by calling with a spade, and it makes it easy for him to play his hand by reraising all in, and it's easy to get away from a spade turn. a spade could also kill the action from him if he does have a spade, giving me another chance to hit my fh.

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont think villains are going crazy to give us their money with pair+flush draw on turns. Would we rather get in as a 2-1 favoriate on the flop (or a 2-1 dog), or more likely fold out the pair+draw on turn and get in our money as a 4-1 dog? My vote is for the flop.

We have to balance the times where we are ahead by the times we are behind, and since we really arent sure in this case, lets just shove it in the middle with top set on the flop, which cannot be a -ev play in the long run (whereas shoving on the turn possbily could be).