AK flops Trips and gets more action than God himself would want

[DaveduFresne]

With a board of AA4, with AK, "you can only win against a complete bluff" are you kidding me?

I'll be the first to tell people that online 100 NL is a lot tighter than a lot of people would guess. But it isn't that tight. AK with AA4 is a monster hand. AQ, AJ and even A10 are very possible holdings of the sb, and I can see button making this move with any pocket pair.

I can see making this laydown with a very tight player moving in on me, but its hardly a hand where I'm going to say to myself "he couldn't possibly have any other hand other pocket 4's".

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
With a board of AA4, with AK, "you can only win against a complete bluff" are you kidding me?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. I'm not kidding. You will only have the best hand out of the three if someone is bluffing or someone is insane.

Time and time again, I've seen three people put a lot of money in on a rainbow paired flop. That has almost always involved two people with trips versus an overpair (impossible here) or a full house.

[ QUOTE ]

I can see making this laydown with a very tight player moving in on me, but its hardly a hand where I'm going to say to myself "he couldn't possibly have any other hand other pocket 4's".

[/ QUOTE ]
You keep disregarding the fact that there are two players who have shown a lot of strength, not just one. Against one player, of course you can call. That one player could have a lot of hands like Ax. Against two players, you have to ask yourself what the player without the ace has. That player is either bluffing or has 44.

[NYCNative]

[ QUOTE ]
You will only have the best hand out of the three if someone is bluffing or someone is insane.

[/ QUOTE ]I'm not one to make a disgnosis of someone's sanity however I would like to state that there are a lot of BAD players at NL $100. I am far from great at poker but I understand the game and position and implied odds much better than the average villain at this level which is why I am a winning player.

I had the vibe at the table that I was against some bad players. A bad player could have had 44, sure, but when you have a vulnerable monster (i.e. a huge hand but not the nuts) and you're against bad players, I think that you have to make them show you the nuts.

The amount of money I lost in the cases above where villain did, in fact, have it, pales in comparison to the amount I have won in hands like the above.

I do realize, however, that if this action happened a higher stakes that I am in no danger of penetrating in the near future that the above hand is unlikely to happen.

I am curious how the High Stakes forum would respond to this post...

[DaveduFresne]

Depends what high stakes you mean, but at real high stakes play is generally shorthanded and is so aggressive that you definitely couldn't fold this hand.

Perhaps at 5/10 NL full ring which is about the tightest limit I've observed, at least at the site I'm on.

I know as poker players we're not supposed to be results oriented, but it amuses me how often I read hand histories on here where legions of players tell hero they're crushed, and villain's hand turns out to be far weaker than anything they had guessed.

[DaveduFresne]

Well I guess we'll just have to respectfully disagree on this one.

To me the shortstacked player is practically irrelevant, as he could be making this move with so many hands. I think him being in there doesn't cause much concern to hero or sb, so it makes it almost like a hu hand.

Really, I can't ever remember making a laydown like that, although maybe that's why I'm still grinding it out at low stakes.