When do you stop raising and give credit for aces?

[JoshuaD]

I think it's ok to just call a river raise from your opponent. I can see alot of hands going this far, but barely any will go much further with out AA.

[Mike Gallo]

How someone plays the river here is really just a litmus test for how aggro or weak-tight someone is.

NH...Welcome aboard. You just made me literally laugh out loud, for a variety of reasons.

[Mike Gallo]

I go to war again on the river. If villian shows AA or QJ, then nice job. Most times he has top two pair.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
No, there is a correct play on the river

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this less correct, more correct, or just as correct as calling a raise out of the BB with QTo? Or as Demi Moore would ask, "Is it strenuously correct?"


[ QUOTE ]
You are ahead of everything the villain could be holding except AA (1010, AK, A10, horribly misplayed gutshot queens or jacks).

[/ QUOTE ]

Sans reads, it's very unlikely that the opponent has the latter hands.

[Paxosmotic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, there is a correct play on the river

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this less correct, more correct, or just as correct as calling a raise out of the BB with QTo? Or as Demi Moore would ask, "Is it strenuously correct?"

[/ QUOTE ]You, sir, are spectacular.

Since myself and the nit are the only two advocating capping the river, I will say that I think it's correct by approximately a 50.00001% to 49.99999% margin. It's so unimportant that it gives me chills.

[Yads]

I think this is definitely opponent dependent. Against most passive opponents betting and calling a raise is a better play than capping every street. Most players at 3/6 won't cap every street w/o holding AA.

[Nick C]

AK = 3 combos
AA = 3 combos
TT = 3 combos

So, this looks favorable, but AK and even TT start to become less likely at some point (especially the AK), when Villain keeps raising. And we know he can't have a royal draw, unless he flopped the nuts.

QJs/QJ should at least cross our minds, I think, though we should discount those 16 combos significantly due to the preflop action.

Still, I'm not capping the river.

[jjacky]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
after some thought, this isn't really a hand for discussion. How someone plays the river here is really just a litmus test for how aggro or weak-tight someone is.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, there is a correct play on the river, and it is to bet and raise repeatedly. You are ahead of everything the villain could be holding except AA (1010, AK, A10, horribly misplayed gutshot queens or jacks). You have to act like it. If you get shown aces, well that's poker and it sucks.

~ Tilts

[/ QUOTE ]

no. villain overplayed his hand severely and hero had no chance to know it.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. It's not about knowing what villian had, it's about simple odds. You'd be giving villian WAY too much credit if you could come up with a hand range set of probabilities where capping on every street is <font color="blue"> not </font> hero's best play. A simple example should prove this point. Give the villain 1010. What about his play on the hand changes? Not much, if anything. Many players play AK exactly like this as well (do you see why? because they don't believe that with an A and a K on the board anyone is holding the case AAs or KKs).

The hand range for the villian is not terribly wide, but it includes at least 2 hands other than AA that he would in many circumstances play exactly this way. So you must certainly give him a significantly lower probability than 50% of holding aces here. That alone makes hero capping every street correct.

~ Tilts

[/ QUOTE ]

this problem is definitely not about simple odds. it's about how you think your opponent narrows down your range of hands (ecept he is absolutely brain-dead. in this case it is about shoving money in the pot).

if two thinking player's are in the hand, the range of possible hands narrows extremely fast. this was not the case here, but even semi-thinking or half-way solid players deserve some more credit.

if both players narrow the possible hand range reasonable, something like the follows is the result:
let's say, after the pre flop action the range of possible hands for both players is a pair Ts or higher, AK or AQ.
the 3-bet of villain tells hero that he has at least AQ. the cap tells villain that hero can beat AQ (at least AK). hero's bet suggests that he can beat AK (TT or better) and villains raise would mean that he can beat that.

against weak players or players you believe that they don't give you enough credit for another reason, this process is slowed down, but it should be pretty fast against most people.

game theoretically, a reraise (i assume that it is almost impossible to bluff the opposition out, what definitely was the case in this hand after the bet and raise on the flop)is only correct if the hand is stronger than the meridian of the other players range of hands. that means any raise should cut the range by 50%. in my experience that is absolutely appliceble against many opponents.

[mosch]

In an online 3/6 game, I cap every street and don't get too attached to my money while I'm doing so.

In a casino game, I go about 8 bets on the turn, and choose my river action depending on how drunk my opponent is (or if he is sober, how much his mother drank while pregnant).

Suggestion: Next time don't post the results with your question, not even in white.