A hand Entity and I talked about

[augie00]

man. this spot sucks. it is a true test of manhood to see if you can bet/fold here.

[Moozh]

Without looking at the other replies.

First the assumptions...

SB has either AA or KK. AK would not have donked the turn. QQ or JJ, would not have stopped on the turn. He could have TT, but he should fold that on the turn.

SB will call the river with AA. Otherwise there was no reason for him to call the turn raise.

You will call a river raise.

He has AA 2x more than KK. Assuming he plays botht the same up to the river, there are 6 combos of AA and 3 combos of KK.

Thus...

2/3 of the time, you gain one bet.
1/3 of the time, you lose two bets.

If you're calling the river raise, it's a moot point. If you can fold to the river raise, bet it.

EDIT: After reading the replies.

The best point made (and one I totally missed) was that AA would be less likely to call the river once the king comes because he knows he's behind every hand Jason could have. Thus, it seems the play depends heavily on your read of the villian. More specifically, whether the villian is an auto-playing multitabler with ABC stats, or if he has shown the ability to read hands.

The other important decision (whether to bet/fold) also depends on your certainty of your read on the villian. If you know he won't raise the river without a hand you beat, then you can safely fold, which makes betting much more appealing.

But, in order of priority, his ability to fold aces to a KQJ board comes first, because if he can do this then there's absolutely no value in betting the river. Only if you're sure he will call with AA can you even begin to think about bet/folding.

[sfer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't like the preflop cap given the situation. If your read is correct on the SB you aren't gaining anything w/the other two players in the hand. Given the SBs range and the other two with the frequency of overcards on the flop, just call the 3-bet w/JJ.

[/ QUOTE ]

I use to not cap preflop in this spot and got criticized pretty heavily for it by some people that I have a lot of respect for. I use to argue with a pretty simple combinatorial analysis that capping here isn't right but they would mumble stuff about metagame etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Remember that hand I capped JJ at Lucky Chances? That was a cap for value, plain and simple with the donkeys giving me the value and with scrub having a wide enough 3-betting range where my equity was quite good.

Here's another JJ cap from two weeks ago at Borgata. Donkey (he would be 90/2/0.4 with about a 25% limp-reraise percent) limps UTG, I raise JJ UTG+1, three more donkeys coldcall, all play at least 35% of their hands, UTG limp-reraises, and I have the world's easiest cap.

[DeathDonkey]

You rock this thread. I would bet the river with the intention of not getting checkraised.

-DeathDonkey

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
man. this spot sucks. it is a true test of manhood to see if you can bet/fold here.

[/ QUOTE ]

It probably is also a mistake without a rock solid read. This is where the unlikely hands come into play. 18-1 gets us down near the 5% range, which in my opinion makes it to close to fold.

One of the resonas being is with one of the possible but unlikely hands KQs. KJs for example.. he might be overestimating his strength. Or he might not be the player that we think he is (read is after 100 hands, still a lot of room for our stats to be giving us a false picture.). He might have it in his head to bluffraise.

I would go as far as to say this. If you are going to fold to a checkraise.. you are better off just checking through.

We know the value bet is a thin one anyway and although you are giving up value, you are trading it for peace of mind and no tilting.. which migh make it worth the lost value for some.

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
does anybody else not like the preflop cap?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't. A TAG raising an ep raise from the blinds pretty much means AA-QQ/AK. So we're either a coinflip or a 4-1 dog.

[jskills]

So I guess the discussion centers around Mr. 17/9 and what would he 3-bet PF out of the SB with and 3-betthe flop with that isn't AA, KK, or QQ right?

So on the river are you thinking that you're beat 2 out of 3 times, so checking behind is correct?

I would still find myself betting for value and crying in my soup if I got raised.

[blackaces13]

[ QUOTE ]
but if you don't know what he will do it is always best to play according to game theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true. It is only best if most unknowns you come up against play perfectly, in which case you should probaby quit. At any given level you can make generalizations about what a "typical" player would do and these assumptions rarely coincide with optimal play.

With regards to the hand in question, I would say that at just about ANY level online you will almost NEVER induce a fold from a better hand with AA, therefore it makes sense to NEVER CR bluff with it.

An easier example is if you're playing .02/.04 then you shouldn't use game theory HU on the end with regards to bluffing raising scare cards. Its wrong because the overwhelming majority of players at that level will simply never fold to a bluff raise on the river, and many of them will fail to notice/care about the scare card.

Can you honestly imagine a player laying down a better hand than AA to a CR on the end after playing the prior streets the way Jason did? Maybe one player in a thousand does that so there's no reason to bring game theory into it IMO. You just assume he'll pay off and act accordingly.

Is there any merit to slowplaying this flop?


LLL

[W. Deranged]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any merit to slowplaying this flop?


LLL

[/ QUOTE ]

Quite simply, no. There is some debate as to whether capping the flop or calling the flop three-bet and raising the turn is better, but not raising this flop of the bat is just silly. Everyone realizes you and the guy in the blind have good hands, and you stand to gain much more from him than you do from them. They might call two cold anyway and that'd be cool.