I am not a fan of AQ

[fanmail]

I am with Proofrock on this one. Why are you playing AQ unless you are going to call a river bet w/a Q high board, no draws? He has no reason to put you on AQ, you checked when the Q came basically saying you have a pocket pair b/w 88-JJ. I would call and pay off something that beats AQ 4-handed here.

[edge]

I believe this guy could be holding any pair here, and could have flopped a set. When I checked the turn, I planned to checkraise, but just as I was about to type in the number, I realized that no hand I beat is going to call, and I'll have to toss in more money on the river when I'm likely behind. Instead, I smoothcalled and bet the river to avoid 88-JJ checking it through. When he raises the river after I come out firing on a blank, which shows a good amount of strength, I don't think I'm ahead anymore.

Of course, he could have been making a move with a small raise, but in that case, I was just outplayed. I definitely think leading the turn and then half-potting the river would have been a better way to do this.

[mgsimpleton]

[ QUOTE ]
Why are you playing AQ unless you are going to call a river bet w/a Q high board, no draws?

[/ QUOTE ]

first of all, the draw got there.

second of all, i think it's ludicrous to make a comment like "why are you going to play AQ if you won't call on a Q high board blah blah blah." hero is clearly beat here... villain doesn't raise the river w/ less than two pair.

i agree with kane, hand was played perfectly. good fold, sucks he had a set, or whatever.

[fanmail]

[ QUOTE ]
first of all, the draw got there.

second of all, i think it's ludicrous to make a comment like "why are you going to play AQ if you won't call on a Q high board blah blah blah." hero is clearly beat here... villain doesn't raise the river w/ less than two pair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, the straight draw did get there, my bad. But saying that villain doesnt raise small on the river w/less than 2 pair, I don't agree with. This is 4-handed, maybe in a full ring game I would fold, but not 4-handed. He could just as easily have KQ as a set.
Hero has shown very little strength and villain has not seen a reason to put him on AQ. Plus the pot is laying almost 4:1, you're confident he doesn't have the best hand here often enough to call?

[spahk]

again, i think the way you played the hand was pretty much right on. things get a tiny bit murkier if you lead the turn and river, since that defines your hand less well for the villain. keeping the lead the whole time, and half potting the river on top, might convince someone to take a shot at you on the river, and hence obligate you to call a little more. keeping the lead is not a terrible line, but it isn't clearly better either.


[ QUOTE ]
I believe this guy could be holding any pair here, and could have flopped a set. When I checked the turn, I planned to checkraise, but just as I was about to type in the number, I realized that no hand I beat is going to call, and I'll have to toss in more money on the river when I'm likely behind. Instead, I smoothcalled and bet the river to avoid 88-JJ checking it through. When he raises the river after I come out firing on a blank, which shows a good amount of strength, I don't think I'm ahead anymore.

Of course, he could have been making a move with a small raise, but in that case, I was just outplayed. I definitely think leading the turn and then half-potting the river would have been a better way to do this.

[/ QUOTE ]

[mythrilfox]

habadguy,

Stop going around and saying "I would make this irrational play because I often make this irrational play without a hand" etc. It's getting annoying. Clearly this isn't limit, where you want to be able to turn c/r bluff. In no limit, you don't have to worry very much about turn checkraises getting called. Plus, if you really want to give credibility to a turn c/r bluff later (which you don't NEED to do, since it has credibility already) you should be doing it here with a hand you are willing to showdown. Against a true TAG, if you show this hand down for your whole stack, you're out of money.

Now, in a hyper-aggressive, huge metagame-dependent game, I could see checkraising a small % of the time, just because you have to mix it up in all different ways. Here it's borderline terrible IMO.

Nice hand edge.

[Marnixvdb]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just curious... what range of hands do you expect him to call you with on the river? One of the problems I've encountered when moving up in stakes is that when I try to act a little weak to get called by weaker hands, what actually ends up happening is that I face a lot of raises (or folds).

[/ QUOTE ]

he will most likely call a riverbet with 88-JJ, 7x, Qx

His turnbet indicated strength. I would bet less on the river, half pot maybe, and sometimes check to see if and how much he bets.

And say you lead this turn for 2/3 pot and he calls, then you can check river and see what happens. If he raises you on the turn when you lead, you are probably beat and can safely muck.

With those hands, and out of position, I'd always try to keep the pot small, and give up if opponent wants to play a big pot.

now that he is raising a potbet on the river, id fold (EDIT: i misread, it's more a 2/3 potbet you made. still I'd fold to raise)

Marnix

[iceman5]

Why not check/call the river? He will probably bet around $130 and you get to see the showdown for the same price you paid to "suppossedly" find out if your beat or not. It looks like your beat when he raises, but for the same $130 you would know for sure if you check/called.

[TheWorstPlayer]

Unless he bets more than $130 and you are left to wonder whether your check induced a bluff. Isn't this a classic blocking bet which serves its purpose perfectly? I don't understand your problem with it.

[edge]

The reason I bet the river rather than check/calling is because I thought I was ahead. 88-JJ and QJ probably just check behind, and maybe KQ as well. It was more of a value bet than a block, but once I get raised, it works as a block/fold too.