limped aces UTG top set

[mgsimpleton]

i won't usually bump my own threads but this has been something i've been struggling with - when it is correct to check raise the river, when to weak lead, and when to bet heavy (all with monsters i mean of course) and i think this situation is a very cloudy one, i'd love some more opinions about river action.

before the river, i limped obv looking to RR and i didn't bet flop because every goddamn time i have AA and hit top set i make 0 money, so in this small pot it wouldn't be a catastrophe if i gave away the pot w/ a free card, but i wanted to win a big one.

[BobboFitos]

[ QUOTE ]
before the river, i limped obv looking to RR and i didn't bet flop because every goddamn time i have AA and hit top set i make 0 money, so in this small pot it wouldn't be a catastrophe if i gave away the pot w/ a free card, but i wanted to win a big one.

[/ QUOTE ]

We talked so much about this just the other day. I like the flop check...

[ QUOTE ]
when it is correct to check raise the river,

[/ QUOTE ]

I dont know if it's "correct" in this hand though. It's all about what his turn raise means. We can ignore your hand, it's what he has that matters (damnit! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ) because if he has a hand that can't call a bet, checking is better. If he has a hand that has showdown value, but wont bet, betting is better. Etc.

So the flop was checked around. You led at the turn and one of the original limpers raised near pot. Fine. His likely hands at that point are the case ace, straight, set (??? nah) 2 pair, i doubt he has "bluff" because it's a nothing pot and it's multiway. that lessens a semibluff, too. i doubt he's suddenly raising a flush draw or whatnot on the turn, also.

So... On the river the "draws" miss but he's not likely bluffing. So no use trying to ellicit some bluffing. Board pairs, which is great for a set. Ax will value bet or call a bet but will not call a c/r, so it doesnt matter there. A counterfeited two pair (54) may bluff. Only bluffing hand imo. Ax that got counterfeited (A5, really) probably wont even call a bet. Or bet himself. 67 (6x, really) will bet and call a bet, but unless they boated, will they call c/r? unlikely.

A straight sees the board paired. Will they call a c/r? Maybe.

Anyway, it sorta leads to betting the river and hoping a straight raises. A boat will raise either way. The few Ax or trips will call and bet, but wont call a c/r, and it boils down to them not really having a bluffing hand enough of the time to let them bluff.

so bet, an amount a straight could raise, as you're getting full house money anyway.

[Chaostracize]

I think a river bet is in order here.

Once you've bet out and called a hefty sized raise on the turn villain will be trying to see a cheap showdown and by checking the river you'll be giving it to him. (This discludes when he rivered a lesser boat, in which case the money is getting in anyway.)

The only hand I see this river check being profitable against is a straight, and even then I like betting out on the river a lot better, say 450.

The way the hand played out there is a definite chance of you getting a lot more money in with bet, 3-bet.

I guess a lot depends on how often you think villain will raise your river bet for value with a hand like 76.

I don't know. I bet. But then again, I like money.

[Big_Jim]

[ QUOTE ]
most players will foolishly autoraise here with 65 or even 44

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I'm a fool. Impossible to put hero on a boat here.

[VanVeen]

I raise whenever I think I have the best hand, too. Because I'm a monkey.

And I don't know what kind of fish you're playing with, but against most players at 1k or 2knl they will not raise a river lead (even a weak one) 100% of the time with a straight or small full house while they WILL bet just as much as they'll call 100% of the time and will consider calling a check-raise ("BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PUT HERO ON A BOAT").

Successfully 3betting and getting called seems unlikely vs. non-idiots. Raising this river w/44 is just bad unless villain thinks Hero sucks. Raising 65 is less bad but still ungood vs. nonfish (ignoring all 'meta-game' considerations).

[VanVeen]

"Anyway, it sorta leads to betting the river and hoping a straight raises. A boat will raise either way. The few Ax or trips will call and bet, but wont call a c/r, and it boils down to them not really having a bluffing hand enough of the time to let them bluff."

A straight will raise <5%, will always bet 80-100% of what he'll call, and will occasionally call a pot sized check-raise. Small boats will raise <10% of the time, will always bet 100% of what they'll call, and will always call a check-raise.

It comes down to how often villain has a straight or full house and how often villain will call a check-raise with a straight or allow you to successfully 3bet him when he's holding a boat. This is a clear check-raise vs. a random opponent. They most often have a straight (and will not raise) and do not raise and then call a 3bet with small full houses but always call a check-raise.

[Big_Jim]

[ QUOTE ]
Raising this river w/44 is just bad unless villain thinks Hero sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

If hero bets the full pot, I agree. If he bets varying degrees less than the pot, I think that a raise/fold to a 3 bet is a viable play. Hero could call a raise with decent A, the straight, or trips.

All of this, though, depends a lot on table image of both players. I play a pretty LAG game, and thus, get lots of calls by shitty hands, but this may just be the games I play ($600 NL on Empire).

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Small boats will raise <10% of the time

[/ QUOTE ]

I strongly disagree with this. Did you mean < 100%? Like 95% of the time? If so, I agree, as 90-99% is the range IMO.

[mgsimpleton]

i think betting full pot does not let a straight raise, and it might not even let 44 raise. this hand was very strangely played and IMO most likely it looks like a weakish ace like AJ-A8 OR 67 (2nd pair + OESD on turn)... weak aces might either check or make a blocking/value bet, but they have no reason to bet full pot. A full pot bet looks a lot like 67, either that or a busted straight draw like 57 or something like that. Or of course, a full house.


So as villain, if someone plays it like this and all of a sudden bets full pot at me, I am not raising my straight. Because their range I am beating is a draw or trips and they might have a full house, and they won't call my raise with a busted draw or trips, so I'm just calling a full pot bet with a straight. With the lowest full house, I'd consider just calling too, as I don't see someone betting full pot showing extreme strength and then calling a raise WITHOUT a full house.

I guess I went for the check raise because many people will donk call check raises with straights, talking themselves into me having 67 or a bluff, as van veen was sort of describing ("it is impossible to put me on a fh")... but now I think the optimal line is weak lead (look like AQ type hand)/3 bet, getting crying calls from counterfeited aces and stlil having straights and fh's and maybe even trips raise for value.

the problem here is if they fold to the 3 bet, weak lead + raise is not as much as their value bet and your check raise... so it comes down to whether they will call your 3 bet with a weak full house, and fwiw, i wouldn't.

[Big_Jim]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that a raise/fold to a 3 bet is a viable play

[/ QUOTE ]

However, I also think that MANY opponents will NOT fold to the 3 bet, and many will even push.