A flopped straight hits massive aggression.

I'd bet call the turn, and check call the river.

The paired board is too scary to continue with agression due to the probable full house.

I wouldn't be thinking 3-4 though!

[jrz1972]

Once you're raised on the turn, you're either up against a boat or villian is grossly overplaying some weaker holding. Just call down from there.

[Mooski]

So have we dismissed the possibility of AA, KK, or AK because it looks like a slow-played pre-flop? (I'm new, so learning here.)

Once the Ace dropped on the flop, he seemed to like it, which to this newbie, looks like he had one in his hand and either a very good kicker, or a 2 or 5 for two pairs. And he wasn't put off by the K on the river either which tells me he had you beaten. 22 or 55? Someone help here, I can't decide.

[img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

I didn't think he slowplayed. I thought he had a mediocre to poor A-2 or A-5 in the hole.

[droolie]

The turn 3-bet is close to being overplayed but I guess he might have just a big A so I don't hate it. Leading the river after he caps the turn is bad. 9 times out of 10 he has the boat and you're dead in the water. Check call there for the size of the pot and that 1 in 10 chance he's a moron.

[gopnik]

I think I'd slow down on the turn and start calling down after the board paired. Really looks like a flopped set.

Im not sure what I would do. It could even be high clubs in a low limit game. I would just check call, because it also seems like he could have AK or a set. The second ace was bad news.

I typically try not to read into anything on what someone buys in with on a table; I figure there are way too many variables in that, more than I could accurately pin anything on. (Not being preachy - I certainly hope it didn't come across like that.)

Flop: His aggression here smacks of him having 2 pair or trips. I would be thinking of that myself on the Turn and at the RIver.

Turn: OK, the only thing that can beat you here is AA, A5, A2, 55, and 22. 3-betting here could go either way, but I think aggression is a better call here so I won't split that hair.

River: Now AK and KK are scary, but I think that's less of a possibility since I suspect he'd raise preflop. With it all said and done, I'd probably just call here. I might have even just checked the River to call him when he bet, but that may be too passive.

[tor]

*grunching*

Given no read and a MP call, and his aggression up to here I put him on the following hands


Behind to

KK(but I'm only going to give him 1 way 'cause of odd flop play)
55, 3 ways
22, 3 ways
AA, 1 way
AK, 6 ways
A5s, 2 ways
A2s, 2 ways

20 ways you can be behind

Ahead of
AQ, 8 ways
AJ, 8 ways
AT, 8 ways

24 ways you can be ahead.

Tie
43s, 2 ways

2 ways to tie
You're ahead here 50% of the time, which I think is conservative. Bet. You might push him off the 43s.


Btw, this is the first time I've ever done the math this way and made a suggestion accordingly. Really, it doesn't look like it matter *much* whether you bet or call. But by the numbers, your aggression here gives you a teeensy bit of fold equity to stack on top of that 50% so it's worth capping by the numbers.

There's also a possibility albiet 0.1% he might fold one of the weaker full houses. You must exploit these tiny edges to become a winning player!

I'm posting this mostly serious, but laughing to myself 'cause it feels so wrong. Someone smack me down with logic, please.

[nomadtla]

[ QUOTE ]
There's also a possibility albiet 0.1% he might fold one of the weaker full houses. You must exploit these tiny edges to become a winning player!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the posibility of feeding the rake kinda negates these little edges.
but with a 50%+/- chance of a win I see betting as feeding the rake.
I like the mathwork though good post