when can i make a laydown like this??

[roy_miami]

Based on the results, the villain is either an idiot or a good player. If he's an idiot he could be betting anything on the river so you need to call. If he's a good player he could be thinking "I'm going to call a bet here anyway, might as well bet" so you should call.

[Phat Mack]

i look at the board, look at the action and say, "hes got AcKc" and 3bet, both call.

It's fun to put people on exact hands, and it can be very gratifying when you nail it on the head, but it's not neccessarily good poker. It's better to say, "he's got a hand he can check raise with." Is it a made hand? A come hand? Total BS?

If you put opponent's hands into categories, you'll do better on the river. Once you put him on AcKc, you'll correctly observe that it's unlikely he has it exactly, incorrectly assume that if he doesn't have it you'll win, and kid yourself into calling.

[sthief09]

[ QUOTE ]
couldnt it be argued that if you called in every close situation such as this, it would reduce variance?

[/ QUOTE ]


wouldn't folding create less variance? variance is deviance from the mean, so folding for 0 every time would cause less of a deviation than calling and winning either -1 or 20. so technically if it's exactly break-even between calling and folding, it seems like folding would reduce the variance.

[AlwaysWrong]

There seems to be two questions:

(1) Based on the villian's actions in the hand, can you eliminate enough possible hands so that 95% of the hands he could possibly hold beat you?

(2) Do you know the villian well enough to be very confident in the range of hands you give him in (1)?

Specifically, what made you SO SURE that he had AcKc? If you can't give a strong argument, then I would be too worried that my emotions / pessimistic outlook on life / whatever was interfering with my decision-making to fold.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
There is a lot of superstition on these boards that if you make a mistaken call, the money you lose somehow doesn't count because you did the "right thing" even though it clearly wasn't, but if you make a mistaken fold, then you are an idiot who knows nothing about poker, and people are flamed for making the mistaken folds but rarely the mistaken calls. It's silly. Close decisions are close decisions, whether they occur on the river or preflop, and aren't where the real money is made.


[/ QUOTE ]

well said. great post and exactly what i was feeling when i went a head and made the call. Oops

-Barron

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
“well in that case, my river call was a mistake. because i was 99.99999999% sure he had AcKc...turns out i was WRONG b/c he had KcQc..”

You were not “wrong” unless you feel that it’s only correct to fold when you can name the other guy’s cards exactly. You could have lost to any of four sets and any flush.

[/ QUOTE ]

i know that i was being sarcastic about being "wrong"

i could have laid this river down and felt great. but didn't. and now i feel not so great after looking back on the hand action and players.

-Barron

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
I would think he has KK more often than he has AKs. you saying you put him on AcKc without mentioning KK alone makes me think you're being results oriented. big laydowns are really really hard to make unless you're against someone who you know really well or in a multiway pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

kk would have capped the turn. further, the turn check indicated a neutralness about giving a free card or a willingness to do so, which, when he checkraised, i felt he did because his hand picked up extra equity...the only extra equity out there was another club...

-Barron

-Barron

[thedorf]

I think that whenever you say you KNOW something at the poker table you should mentally define your terms. Obviously KNOW in this case does not mean; if he flipped his cards over and I saw that I was beat I would still call. That would be idiotic and you would never ever do it. So you actually didn't KNOW you were beat according to this definition of "know".

I think you made a fine call and should make the same call every time a similar situation arises. There are circumstances where you could lay down aces on this river (you have to call two cold for example). But there's really no need to sweat these river calls for one bet heads up in big pots. Your problem (a financial one) will arise if you do decide to start folding in these situations.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
i look at the board, look at the action and say, "hes got AcKc" and 3bet, both call.

It's fun to put people on exact hands, and it can be very gratifying when you nail it on the head, but it's not neccessarily good poker. It's better to say, "he's got a hand he can check raise with." Is it a made hand? A come hand? Total BS?

If you put opponent's hands into categories, you'll do better on the river. Once you put him on AcKc, you'll correctly observe that it's unlikely he has it exactly, incorrectly assume that if he doesn't have it you'll win, and kid yourself into calling.

[/ QUOTE ]

i didn't go into my whole thought process on the turn for everybody...there was a good 5 seconds that passed between the checkraise and my 3bet...but in the end, i said "hes got AcKc."

so here was they process: villian 3 bet preflop, he's a bit loose but after a raise and a cold call, this indicates a strong holding. then on the flop with all that action i felt he had either AK, or KQ, or AA, or KK. if he had KK, i felt it was likely he'd bet out the turn since it seems the caller was on a draw so he'd bet, id raise and he could 3bet and gain a great deal of money on the turn. when he checked and i bet and THEN he raised, i looked at the board, replayed the action, and concluded that he must have improved somehow on the turn. that club brought the improvement, therefore he likely has a flush draw to go along with his made hand. Therefore he likely has AcKc (or KcQc, but i thought that was a little less likely given the strength with which he played it). Therefore, my play is to 3bet and charge him more. he smooth called it quickly, indicating i was likely correct. on the river, he bet out when the club hit instead of check calling. he opened himself to a raise that, if he was beated, he would be hesitant to call. i had done NOTHING in that hand but raise. why would he think i'd stop now? from HIS vantage point, he can't see that i can see that the club helped him so i might raise and he can 3bet. he wants to get value from his now super made hand that he knows beats mine and with 2 callers there he may also think i MIGHT check behind. therefore, i felt virtually certain he had AcKc.

again, i was wrong on the exact hand, but clearly correct in my analysis. yet, i made the wrong play. call it a thinking player's tilt.

-Barron

[sthief09]

well, you wrote "checked to me i bet 1 caller and now the flop raiser checkraises. i look at the board, look at the action and say, "hes got AcKc" and 3bet"

which is why I felt he has KK more often. I get what you're saying now though. I know how you feel. on one hand you're really proud of yourself for making such a good read (him picking up a flush draw with a good made hand), but on the other you're pissed you didn't act on it