QQ 15-30

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Anyways, if he's ACTUALLY strong enough to raise JJ here then I think you should just check-call down the whole way and let him bet his hand, because if he is strong enough to raise JJ here he should be strong enough to dump the hand when it meets further resistance, and that's what you give him by threebetting. So I think the threebet puts you in a position where most of the time you're getting called down only by better hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not three-betting the flop is OK since unknown players don't always wait until the turn to raise with top pair. But once you play a guy a lot and he is aggro/tenacious you need to be willing to three bet flops with less than top pair since they will often raise with less.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, you'll say that live players don't fold JJ there. Fine, they don't. But the guys that can't fold it don't raise on that flop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes they do. The pattern of flop aggression going to call down mode is common in LA mid limit.

~ Rick

[mike l.]

i decide that he has JJ and play it fine until the river where the A, for no rational reason, freezes me up. i should bet the river here.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
i decide that he has JJ and play it fine until the river where the A, for no rational reason, freezes me up. i should bet the river here.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you are playing results. Check calling is OK, he might bluff off enough lower pairs and check down enough weak kings to offset the bets you lose by the river going check-check when he holds the underpair.

~ Rick

[ike]

[ QUOTE ]
i decide that he has JJ and play it fine until the river where the A, for no rational reason, freezes me up.

[/ QUOTE ]
If you're 100% certain he has JJ you should obviously bet the river. Poker is really easy when you know your opponent's hand. However, since you're questioning your play, you obviously don't know his hand and the ace just changed alot of the hands you could be beating to more hands that beat you. It is rational to care that the ace fell.

[threepines]

Just wondering why you are playing 15-30 after playing much bigger games last year. Most of us respect your perspectives and play and might find a good lesson in your story.

Maybe you've already discussed this in a thread?

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
"the only way your flop 3-bet can make much sense is if you now bet the river."

fine. please note though he is never ever ever folding a better hand here. no one ever does that ever. never. ever.

anyway that said, what about the idea that if i check the river he will check behind instinctually with a lot of kings he should bet (KQ/KJ/KT)?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hi Mike,

If he'll check behind with hands that beat you, this is an argument for checking. I'm not suggesting that checking is bad. If you do check though, because you think he will check a better hand, than you should fold if he bets. The point is, it's highly unlikely that he has seen all this action and still holds a hand that you beat AND will bluff.

K73. There's no draw out there. If he gives you all this action, it's because he thinks he's best. If you check the ace because he is passive, it seems hard to believe that he will bet a small pair as a bluff. It's much more likely that he will check behind, and if he bets, it's because he has you beat.

On this board, check calling only makes sense against the tightly-loosely-aggressively-passive type that will call down with any pair even if it seems likely they are behind, but then try to bluff an overcard hoping you'll fold the up-to-this-point-top-pair, despite the fact that if you hold this hand, your decision to check it surely indicates that you want to make sure you reach showdown. I doubt this is the kind of player you are facing.

my 2 cents.
Eric

[elindauer]

[ QUOTE ]
That said, the money saved by seeing him check down his weaker kings...

[/ QUOTE ]

How many players are aggressive enough to 3-bet KQ, and then check behind this river? I find this rather unlikely.

[ QUOTE ]
...combined with bluffing off his weaker pairs probably offsets the money earned by having him call a river bet with a weaker hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to believe it's significantly likely that he holds a K but not A king AND will check it behind to defend this. Surely you think it's more likely that he will call with JJ-88 than that he will bet it himself, no?


[ QUOTE ]
Another problem with betting is that unknown might be a maniac, and a maniac might be capable of raising the river with an underpair.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems like a reasonable argument, but I find it more likely that the maniac would have raised the turn if he was going to make a move trying to knock off QQ.

So, while it's certainly possible to conceive of a player against whom check-calling is best, I'd say that there are massively more players that fall into the bet / fold camp (ie, all loose passive players), and then a much smaller group against whom check / fold is right (tight passive types), and then a still smaller group against whom check / call is best (aggressive preflop, passive turn, aggressive river).

Giving him credit for betting TT as a bluff seems too much to me.

my 2 cents.
Eric

[RicktheRuler]

Mike:

Since the player is an unknown, I think the best play here is to check call (since we are now at the river). It seems that his most likely holding would be AK, but I think HU most players will raise your turn bet--unless he fears he will lose you right there. Of course, you may be up against a strong player/maniac--tough to tell against an unkown--but since you made it to the river I think you have to check/call and find out.

[GuyOnTilt]

Hey Mike,

Not sure where you're playing 15/30, but if this is Commerce 40/80 it's played perfectly if you bet the river.

GoT